Re: [nfsv4] I-D Action:draft-ietf-nfsv4-ipv6-00.txt

[Chuck Lever <[e-mail]>]

On Oct 19, 2010, at 8:25 AM, dhawal bhagwat wrote:

> 
>> } Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2010 15:45:07 -0400
>> } From: Trond Myklebust <[e-mail]>
>> } To: [e-mail]
>> } Subject: Re: [nfsv4] I-D Action:draft-ietf-nfsv4-ipv6-00.txt
>> } 
>> } On Mon, 2010-10-18 at 10:45 -0700, [e-mail] wrote:
>> } > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
>> } > This draft is a work item of the Network File System Version 4 Working Group of the IETF.
>> } > 
>> } > 
>> } > 	Title           : NFS operation over IPv6
>> } > 	Author(s)       : A. RN, et al.
>> } > 	Filename        : draft-ietf-nfsv4-ipv6-00.txt
>> } > 	Pages           : 8
>> } > 	Date            : 2010-10-18
>> } > 
>> } > This Internet-Draft provides the description of problems faced by NFS
>> } > and its various side band protocols, when implemented over IPv6 in
>> } > various deployment scenarios.  Solutions to the various problems are
>> } > also given in the draft and are sought for approval.
>> } > 
>> } > Foreword
>> } > 
>> } > This "forward" section is an unnumbered section that is not included
>> } > in the table of contents.  It is primarily used for the IESG to make
>> } > comments about the document.  It can also be used for comments about
>> } > the status of the document and sometimes is used for the RFC2119
>> } > requirements language statement.
>> } > 
>> } > A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
>> } > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-nfsv4-ipv6-00.txt
>> } > 
>> } > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
>> } > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
>> } > 
>> } > Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader
>> } > implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the
>> } > Internet-Draft.
>> } 
>> } The RPCBIND requirement (MUST) is definitely unwelcome. The whole point
>> } of giving NFSv4 a fixed port was in order to get rid of the reliance on
>> } portmapping.
> 
> Noted.  Our intent was to say that if a portmap call is being made, then 
> in case of NFS/IPv6, it MUST be via RPCBIND.  ... 

Curious, is it really necessary to stipulate that?  Have you encountered IPv6 implementations that attempt to resolve ports with PORTMAP over IPv6 ?

I suppose this is relevant for implementations that are not based on a full TI-RPC implementation, but have purpose-built portmap clients and RPC layers.

-- 
chuck[dot]lever[at]oracle[dot]com