Re: [nfsv4] Draft RFC for ONC RPC over AF_VSOCK
Jeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.com> Fri, 27 October 2017 17:59 UTC
Return-Path: <jlayton@redhat.com>
X-Original-To: nfsv4@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: nfsv4@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F40E313A65C for <nfsv4@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Oct 2017 10:59:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.421
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.421 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=0.5, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kMB-g4eAx8S0 for <nfsv4@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Oct 2017 10:59:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qt0-f177.google.com (mail-qt0-f177.google.com [209.85.216.177]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 35A0213F59D for <nfsv4@ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Oct 2017 10:59:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qt0-f177.google.com with SMTP id h4so9428502qtk.8 for <nfsv4@ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Oct 2017 10:59:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:date:in-reply-to :references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=e91fnKnj9SzPfDmbVUizVSa8wCmYe69Ewmp0DvFOg7A=; b=IrNLcdIfcux4vKafHkCQUzR5jUcgsW53eMhrk6VovCbEe3gwR97vHTDP1pQbsdBppu dUkZS9Lro5unjxLldGTXHbeZgLZdlUxAWPLumXVDLBavJYI0hNGvTB/ud9Q56Xy/eqoP iBJtv9dO8MfPobxReLoMOlDAQmR/z9I+SpDUZMxakNoYZylx5dPdUKjINdXUhMinDssd hSPauEMSJDkoNvD9hFsLp8mSJGA1om1xmmXSJU1OjCMJlX6BKKQELBaWIPcDHsolOCuz brf7U995y83qMpeGFWiuzp3fVPd59ridIRxP5+kK8vHiPq/7ylZtNead1rcO/Q3GZrep t10w==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMCzsaUZ7+abP/JuAcsJfJjeyqPF1vXWPcr5blp7PL229wNey+E2AfN0 4wCT2o1MFtHKUilr4TbBjnFrKzxgWpQ=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABhQp+Rds30FY/jiAPV+819WKRWlWraIFDaUoxp1F+0DR83MvMiE0ko1MMxOotMB+oZTfc48C9imjA==
X-Received: by 10.200.25.45 with SMTP id t42mr2229793qtj.305.1509127173119; Fri, 27 Oct 2017 10:59:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tleilax.poochiereds.net (cpe-71-70-156-158.nc.res.rr.com. [71.70.156.158]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id c16sm5686242qtd.57.2017.10.27.10.59.31 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Fri, 27 Oct 2017 10:59:32 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <1509127168.4946.14.camel@redhat.com>
From: Jeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.com>
To: Matt Benjamin <mbenjami@redhat.com>
Cc: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@redhat.com>, Linux NFS Mailing List <linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org>, "J . Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org>, Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com>, Steve Dickson <steved@redhat.com>, Anna Schumaker <Anna.Schumaker@netapp.com>, Trond Myklebust <trondmy@primarydata.com>, Daniel Berrange <berrange@redhat.com>, NFSv4 <nfsv4@ietf.org>
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2017 13:59:28 -0400
In-Reply-To: <CAKOnarmotB2CXdiNvnYV1Jz+0JwwA8tgQjFN1Ssy5jN95T-rsw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20171005200835.GA31525@stefanha-x1.localdomain> <CAKOnarmreQp6c8qM7x=ohGf1sAoj53qbE0bNvKxzyWLiS=2zKw@mail.gmail.com> <1509110202.4704.7.camel@redhat.com> <CAKOnarmotB2CXdiNvnYV1Jz+0JwwA8tgQjFN1Ssy5jN95T-rsw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Mailer: Evolution 3.24.6 (3.24.6-1.fc26)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nfsv4/m_N_mOhXBoA-8H0bRn9kE-Ro4sA>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 27 Oct 2017 11:07:37 -0700
Subject: Re: [nfsv4] Draft RFC for ONC RPC over AF_VSOCK
X-BeenThere: nfsv4@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: NFSv4 Working Group <nfsv4.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/nfsv4>, <mailto:nfsv4-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/nfsv4/>
List-Post: <mailto:nfsv4@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:nfsv4-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4>, <mailto:nfsv4-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2017 17:59:36 -0000
I agree -- that could be useful later. Given that, maybe we should call the netids something like: vsockc: connected vsock vsockd: datagram vsock AIUI, netids are just something we inherited from Sun when we got the TI-RPC library. I don't think they are governed by any sort of names+numbers authority, are they? If not then we're probably define it to whatever we wish, though it might be a good idea to talk to the Solaris folks and see if they have any input as to the naming. -- Jeff On Fri, 2017-10-27 at 09:27 -0400, Matt Benjamin wrote: > Hi Jeff, > > This doc says they are: > https://vmsplice.net/~stefan/stefanha-kvm-forum-2015.pdf > > But only stream sockets are mentioned here: > https://wiki.qemu.org/Features/VirtioVsock > > Trond and Chuck suggested in an offline conversation a few weeks ago > that they could imagine a datagram version of the transport being > useful. It's probably worth passing that alone. > > Matt > > On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 9:16 AM, Jeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.com> wrote: > > On Thu, 2017-10-05 at 16:50 -0400, Matt Benjamin wrote: > > > Hi Stefan, > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 4:08 PM, Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > I have previously submitted patches that implement NFS client and nfsd > > > > support for the AF_VSOCK address family. In order for this to be > > > > acceptable for merge the AF_VSOCK transport needs to be defined in an > > > > IETF RFC. Below is a draft RFC that defines ONC RPC over AF_VSOCK. > > > > > > > > My patches use netid "vsock" but "tcpv" has also been suggested. This draft > > > > RFC still uses "vsock" but I'll update it to "tcpv" if there is consensus. > > > > > > > > > > I think "vsock" is the appropriate netid, not "tcpv." Stream > > > orientation, if anything, is the general category containing TCP and > > > VSOCK, not the reverse. But really I think it's just more clear. > > > > > > > Agreed. VSOCK is its own thing. It bears some resemblance to TCP, but > > calling it tcpv would be confusing. IIRC, Chuck only proposed that when > > we were discussing an alternative transport that would look more like a > > typical network. > > > > BTW: Does VSOCK have a connectionless mode, analogous to UDP? If so, > > then it may be nice to consider what the netid for that might look like > > as well, before we settle on any names. > > -- > > Jeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.com> > > > -- Jeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.com>
- [nfsv4] Fwd: Draft RFC for ONC RPC over AF_VSOCK Matt Benjamin
- Re: [nfsv4] Draft RFC for ONC RPC over AF_VSOCK Stefan Hajnoczi
- Re: [nfsv4] Draft RFC for ONC RPC over AF_VSOCK Chuck Lever
- Re: [nfsv4] Draft RFC for ONC RPC over AF_VSOCK Stefan Hajnoczi
- Re: [nfsv4] Draft RFC for ONC RPC over AF_VSOCK Matt Benjamin
- Re: [nfsv4] Draft RFC for ONC RPC over AF_VSOCK Matt Benjamin
- Re: [nfsv4] Draft RFC for ONC RPC over AF_VSOCK Jeff Layton
- Re: [nfsv4] Draft RFC for ONC RPC over AF_VSOCK Jeff Layton
- Re: [nfsv4] Draft RFC for ONC RPC over AF_VSOCK Chuck Lever
- Re: [nfsv4] Draft RFC for ONC RPC over AF_VSOCK Stefan Hajnoczi