From: Chris Penney Subject: Re: NAT & lockd Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2005 10:08:00 -0400 Message-ID: <111aefd050408070844511651@mail.gmail.com> References: <111aefd050408062546161db8@mail.gmail.com> <1112967554.15565.58.camel@lade.trondhjem.org> Reply-To: penney@msu.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Return-path: Received: from sc8-sf-mx1-b.sourceforge.net ([10.3.1.11] helo=sc8-sf-mx1.sourceforge.net) by sc8-sf-list2.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Exim 4.30) id 1DJu9Y-0001ZO-40 for nfs@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 08 Apr 2005 07:08:08 -0700 Received: from wproxy.gmail.com ([64.233.184.202]) by sc8-sf-mx1.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Exim 4.41) id 1DJu9X-0007t7-FP for nfs@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 08 Apr 2005 07:08:07 -0700 Received: by wproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id 69so852180wra for ; Fri, 08 Apr 2005 07:08:01 -0700 (PDT) To: nfs@lists.sourceforge.net In-Reply-To: <1112967554.15565.58.camel@lade.trondhjem.org> 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: > > nsm_mon_unmon: rpc failed, status=-13 > > lockd: cannot monitor x.x.x.x > > > > With our old NFS server I never got any messages. The IP address > > x.x.x.x is that of the NAT box. I'm curious if this means locking > > does not work behind nat or if it means something else. Is there > > anything I can do here? Would a 2.6.x based NAT box have a more up to > > date iptables that supports lockd? This is non-critical, I'm just > > trying to understand. > > Locking under NFSv2/v3 is not very NAT or firewall-friendly and was one > of the motivations for developing NFSv4. > > The problem is that under NFSv2/v3, the protocol requires bi-directional > communication (by which I mean that the server needs to be able to > connect to the client, which is a problem for NAT as you can see above) > and requires a bunch of helper-protocols that use different ports (which > is a problem for firewalls). In this situation (behind NAT), what happens with the client? Will a lock request fail or simply appear to always work? Do I need to be concerned about the server reliability at all (ie. are the messages harmless other than obviously the files not really being locked)? Thanks for the fast reply, Chris ------------------------------------------------------- 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://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click _______________________________________________ NFS maillist - NFS@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs