Re: [nfsv4] I-D Action:draft-ietf-nfsv4-ipv4v6-00.txt

sfaibish <sfaibish@emc.com> Mon, 18 October 2010 19:40 UTC

Return-Path: <sfaibish@emc.com>
X-Original-To: nfsv4@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: nfsv4@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E7973A6AC1 for <nfsv4@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Oct 2010 12:40:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.235
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.235 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.364, BAYES_00=-2.599, GB_I_LETTER=-2, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xzf-RcZnHbK6 for <nfsv4@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Oct 2010 12:40:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mexforward.lss.emc.com (mexforward.lss.emc.com [128.222.32.20]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 023633A6ABB for <nfsv4@ietf.org>; Mon, 18 Oct 2010 12:40:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hop04-l1d11-si02.isus.emc.com (HOP04-L1D11-SI02.isus.emc.com [10.254.111.55]) by mexforward.lss.emc.com (Switch-3.4.3/Switch-3.4.3) with ESMTP id o9IJfe6S009750 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 18 Oct 2010 15:41:40 -0400
Received: from mailhub.lss.emc.com (mailhub.lss.emc.com [10.254.221.251]) by hop04-l1d11-si02.isus.emc.com (RSA Interceptor); Mon, 18 Oct 2010 15:41:37 -0400
Received: from usensfaibisl2e.eng.emc.com (USENSFAIBISL2E.eng.emc.com [10.238.120.90]) by mailhub.lss.emc.com (Switch-3.4.3/Switch-3.4.3) with ESMTP id o9IJfQAo013299; Mon, 18 Oct 2010 15:41:27 -0400
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2010 15:41:26 -0400
To: Thomas Haynes <thomas@netapp.com>
From: sfaibish <sfaibish@emc.com>
Organization: EMC
Content-Type: text/plain; format="flowed"; delsp="yes"; charset="iso-8859-15"
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20101018174520.EB8BA3A6B8B@core3.amsl.com> <C9B236F2-1F42-4070-A083-1A776B5C9C92@netapp.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <op.vksebcc4unckof@usensfaibisl2e.eng.emc.com>
In-Reply-To: <C9B236F2-1F42-4070-A083-1A776B5C9C92@netapp.com>
User-Agent: Opera Mail/9.10 (Win32)
X-EMM-MHVC: 1
Cc: nfsv4@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [nfsv4] I-D Action:draft-ietf-nfsv4-ipv4v6-00.txt
X-BeenThere: nfsv4@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: NFSv4 Working Group <nfsv4.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4>, <mailto:nfsv4-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Mon, 18 Oct 2010 19:40:14 -0000

Tom and Spencer,


I propose to have a discussion on this topic at the IETF meeting. 10  
minutes
should be enough. I have a problem with pushing this to 4.2 when we may  
need
to address the issue sooner.

/Sorin

On Mon, 18 Oct 2010 15:28:05 -0400, Thomas Haynes <thomas@netapp.com>  
wrote:

> Minor nits:
>
> Page 7:
>
>         same server identifier.  An example of well generated server
>         identifier can be the one that includes the following:
>    (c)
>         (a)  a) MAC address
>         (b)  b) Machine serial number
>
> I would expect these items to be part of (b) above (The ':' gives me  
> that expectation).
>
> I find the (a) a) to be confusing.
>
> ----
>
> Page 10:
>
>    instead of the client IP address, for the indexing, as explained here
>    -
>
>    As mentioned in Client Identification (Section 6) -
>
>    The client SHOULD always send the same client string, irrespective of
> I can't tell if this is bad formatting or if two paragraphs are missing.
>
>
> ----
>
>    There are scenarios where NFS implementations need to store IP
>    addresses in persistent storage, like -
>
>    NSM monitor/notify database.
>
>    persistent reply cache.
>
> I believe you want this lettered.
>
> -------
>
> A larger question on the draft as a whole would be whether we could add  
> some
> additional operations to NFSv4.2 to get rid of the guessing. I.e., could  
> a client
> send a server a list of IPv4 and IPv6 addresses that it is using and in  
> return the
> server respond with the equivalence addresses that it is using?
>
> One issue I can see is that the machines might be on different subnets  
> that use the
> same IP addresses. I.e., 192.168.2.14 on the filer's e0a might be a  
> different private subnet
> than the 192.168.2.15 on the client's e1.
>
> ---------
>
> Finally, it is understated, so I think you should bring more attention  
> to it, but the problem
> you deal with in Section 6 applies to symmetric single stack mode  
> topologies as well. I.e.,
> all current multi-homed IPv4 deployments.
>



-- 
Best Regards

Sorin Faibish
Corporate Distinguished Engineer
Unified Storage Division
         EMC²
where information lives

Phone: 508-249-5745
Cellphone: 617-510-0422
Email : sfaibish@emc.com