From: Dan Stromberg Subject: Re: [PATCH] xprt sharing (was Re: xprt_bindresvport) Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2004 11:34:40 -0800 Message-ID: <1102620880.3784.3.camel@tesuji.nac.uci.edu> References: <482A3FA0050D21419C269D13989C61130435EC6F@lavender-fe.eng.netapp.com> <41B74551.5040908@sun.com> <20041209113107.GE15055@suse.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-dc78lvW4+VszHg6IbRli" Cc: strombrg@dcs.nac.uci.edu, Mike Waychison , "Lever, Charles" , nfs@lists.sourceforge.net Return-path: Received: from sc8-sf-mx2-b.sourceforge.net ([10.3.1.12] helo=sc8-sf-mx2.sourceforge.net) by sc8-sf-list2.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Exim 4.30) id 1CcU3u-00081I-U5 for nfs@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 09 Dec 2004 11:34:50 -0800 Received: from dcs.nac.uci.edu ([128.200.34.32] ident=root) by sc8-sf-mx2.sourceforge.net with esmtp (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.41) id 1CcU3t-0003TV-OE for nfs@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 09 Dec 2004 11:34:50 -0800 To: Olaf Kirch In-Reply-To: <20041209113107.GE15055@suse.de> Sender: nfs-admin@lists.sourceforge.net Errors-To: nfs-admin@lists.sourceforge.net List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Discussion of NFS under Linux development, interoperability, and testing. List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: --=-dc78lvW4+VszHg6IbRli Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, 2004-12-09 at 12:31 +0100, Olaf Kirch wrote: > On Wed, Dec 08, 2004 at 01:17:53PM -0500, Mike Waychison wrote: > > This has been bugging me for a while. The fact that we are limitting > > ourselves to a single nfs mount per port. From what I can tell, Solari= s > > shares the transports between nfs mounts from the same server and saves > > themselves a lot of trouble with running out of port numbers in doing s= o. >=20 > Shouldn't we allow NFS mounts to use non-privileged ports? Many > environments don't really care about the "security" provided by privilege= d > ports, but would be more than happy if they can run with a few hundred > NFS mounts IMO, this is a good time to apply the principle: "Be liberal in what you accept, and conservative in what you send". Last I heard, windows didn't even have a concept of a reserved port. When I wrote a BSD-compatible printsystem in python, I made it accept connections from any port, but generate connections only from reserved ports. It'd probably be worthwhile to have options to make NFS (and my printsystem) generate any port (not just reserved ones), and accept only reserved ports - but the default probably should be to accept any port, and send only reserved ports - not because reserved ports are effective at all, but because it'll avoid never ending questions about why NFS isn't working. --=-dc78lvW4+VszHg6IbRli Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBBuKjPo0feVm00f/8RAsygAJ9q8Bl3btA7Qc9Ewe4vWDLyFmsAEACfVSTm jUau4A1PlO0GSvddRhVB5pI= =e3uz -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-dc78lvW4+VszHg6IbRli-- ------------------------------------------------------- SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users. Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now. http://productguide.itmanagersjournal.com/ _______________________________________________ NFS maillist - NFS@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs