Re: [nfsv4] AD Evaluation for draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpcrdma-bidirection-05

[Chuck Lever <[e-mail]>]

> On Jan 10, 2017, at 5:13 PM, Tom Talpey <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> On 1/10/2017 4:47 PM, Chuck Lever wrote:
>>> Probably just for my benefit, but since you mention NAT routers in this text,
>>> 
>>>   To facilitate operation through NAT routers, all NFSv4.1 transport
>>>   connections are initiated by NFSv4.1 clients.  Therefore NFSv4.1
>>>   servers send callbacks to clients in the backward direction on
>>>   connections established by NFSv4.1 clients.
>>> 
>>> is it obvious which end has responsibility for NAT binding keep-alives? I'm guessing that's a client responsibility, but that's just a guess.
>> 
>> I don't understand what NAT binding keep-alive means, exactly, but
>> based on a naive assumption, I think the client is responsible here.
>> If anyone knows of a cite-able summary of the NFSv4.1 backchannel
>> redesign goals, I can reference it here.
> 
> I think the reference to NAT is a red herring and should be deleted,
> or at the very least demoted to an example. The goal of the client-
> initiated backchannel was much more general; it included traversing
> firewalls but it was not an explicit goal of the 4.1 backchannel to
> interoperate through NAT (although it certainly does).
> 
> There was some language in the original RFC5661 sections 1.4, 2.10.1,
> 2.10.3.1 and 2.10.8.1 on this, but RFC5661 specifically never mentioned
> NAT.

Fair enough, the mention of NAT will be removed.

--
Chuck Lever