From: Chuck Lever Subject: Re: enabling IPv6 Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 16:28:39 -0500 Message-ID: <0FE403CA-9487-485C-9949-FEC072EC2314@oracle.com> References: <20100118144746.1e05865e@tlielax.poochiereds.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v936) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Cc: steved@redhat.com, linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org To: Jeff Layton Return-path: Received: from rcsinet12.oracle.com ([148.87.113.124]:28249 "EHLO rcsinet12.oracle.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754434Ab0ARV24 (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Jan 2010 16:28:56 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20100118144746.1e05865e-9yPaYZwiELC+kQycOl6kW4xkIHaj4LzF@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Jan 18, 2010, at 2:47 PM, Jeff Layton wrote: > With the commit of the statd patches over the weekend, we're now > positioned to be able to ship IPv6-enabled nfs-utils in distros. There > is a potential snag though... > > Consider this situation: > > Admin has a Linux server set up. Server has both IPv4 and IPv6 addrs. > Both addresses are in DNS. > > Without an IPv6-enabled nfs-utils, he mounts via IPv4 and all works > fine. Now with an IPv6 enabled nfs-utils, mount.nfs prefers the IPv6 > addr and the mount fails (or hangs for a long time and then fails, if > it's using NFSv4)... Why should it fail? > While I don't really like it, I think we may need to consider making > mount.nfs prefer IPv4 addrs when it can resolve a hostname to both v4 > and v6. Otherwise, we run the risk of breaking an awful lot of working > setups... Isn't that what "proto=udp" vs. "proto=udp6" is for? -- Chuck Lever chuck[dot]lever[at]oracle[dot]com