From: Prasad P Subject: Re: Status of NFS over IPv6 Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 02:43:58 -0500 Message-ID: References: <46A49E93.2070306@bull.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0676421891==" Cc: NFSv4 ML , nfs@lists.sourceforge.net, nfsv4-bounces@linux-nfs.org To: Le Rouzic Return-path: Received: from sc8-sf-mx2-b.sourceforge.net ([10.3.1.92] helo=mail.sourceforge.net) by sc8-sf-list2-new.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IDy14-00049B-0O for nfs@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 26 Jul 2007 00:44:10 -0700 Received: from e36.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.154]) by mail.sourceforge.net with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.44) id 1IDy15-00015k-9h for nfs@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 26 Jul 2007 00:44:14 -0700 Received: from d03relay02.boulder.ibm.com (d03relay02.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.227]) by e36.co.us.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id l6Q7i10B004133 for ; Thu, 26 Jul 2007 03:44:01 -0400 Received: from d03av03.boulder.ibm.com (d03av03.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.169]) by d03relay02.boulder.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v8.4) with ESMTP id l6Q7i1IB263466 for ; Thu, 26 Jul 2007 01:44:01 -0600 Received: from d03av03.boulder.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d03av03.boulder.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id l6Q7i1Bq021048 for ; Thu, 26 Jul 2007 01:44:01 -0600 In-Reply-To: <46A49E93.2070306@bull.net> List-Id: "Discussion of NFS under Linux development, interoperability, and testing." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: nfs-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net Errors-To: nfs-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net This is a multipart message in MIME format. --===============0676421891== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_alternative 002A7A9286257324_=" This is a multipart message in MIME format. --=_alternative 002A7A9286257324_= Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Le Rouzic wrote: >Chuck Lever a =E9crit : > >> Le Rouzic wrote: > >>>>> While there is some interest in IPv6 among some of Linux's=20 >>>>> corporate sponsors, there really isn't an overwhelming "killer"=20 >>>>> requirement for IPv6, so there isn't much motivation to get all=20 >>>>> this completed. I have to admit I'm pretty burned out on all this=20 >>>>> because of how complicated it has all become. I'd be happy if=20 >>>>> someone stepped forward and volunteered to help or take over the=20 >>>>> integration. >>>>>=20 >>>> >>> Some basic tests have been also done on the submitted Aur=E9lien's=20 patchs >>> and we will be running the robustness tests we are regularly doing=20 >>> for ipv4. >>> See also at http://nfsv4.bullopensource.org/doc/rpc=5Ftestsuite.php >>> for this list of tests (cthon04, ffsb, fsx...) >>> >>>> >>>> We hope the interest of community about IPv6 will grow. >>>> Feel free to send comments on the code. >>>>=20 >>>> >>> Some customers are already asking it but were waiting of its=20 >>> availibity. >>> There are also products based on NFSV4 features which are interested=20 in. >> >> >> Yeah, it's kind of unfortunate that we can't be completely specific=20 >> about the requests/requirements/use cases. > > > Hi, > I think you are right but nevertheless customers often require to be=20 compliant IPV6 > in their system even they don't use IPV6. Soon, IPV6 deployed, NFS=20 will be > one of the first applications used. Some others UNIX systems also=20 have it, > so interoperabity it would be good Linux have it. > But that is true it will be interested to know when and who on the=20 nfs lists is interested in > to use it. > >> But here's what I know: >> >> 1. Apparently there is a bureaucratic (ie non-technical) requirement=20 >> from the US Federal government for IPv6 support in new computer=20 >> software deployments. I forget when this requirement kicks in, or=20 >> what exactly "IPv6 support" really entails. Hi, Back in 2005, the US Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued a=20 mandate calling on all Federal Agencies to have an operational IPv6=20 backbone network by June, 2008. As the date approaches, USG customers are = increasingly asking whether individual products/applications are "IPv6=20 compliant". The DoD has also indicated that it is developing an Approved Products List = (APL) on which certified IPv6 compliant products will be listed. The=20 intention is that any product purchased by the DoD must first be certified = and added to the list. We have some nongovernment customers (names cannot be disclosed)=20 requesting for IPv6 support in NFS, and few of them are willing to=20 participate in pilot program. In addition to the customers, we have some=20 requests from different product owners for this support, so that their=20 products can be made "IPv6 complaint". >> >> 2. The APAC market wants IPv6 because of an explosion of individual=20 >> IP network accessors, although arguably that can be addressed for a=20 >> little while with judicious application of NAT routers. >> >> Otherwise, the companies I've worked for recently have had no real=20 >> customer requests for IPv6 support in NFS. >> >> NFS community resources are focused largely on NFSv4.1 and pNFS design=20 >> and implementation. However, here's some of what I think we need to=20 >> get IPv6 done: >> >> + A coherent design for handling IPv6 address caching and export rules = on the server side > > After a first rejected solution and some new discussion on the NFSV4 = mailing list, > Bull (Aur=E9lien) supplied a new document described the current=20 > implementation. This little design document is still here:=20 > http://nfsv4.bullopensource.org/doc/nfs=5Fipv6.php > > Any new remarks are welcome. > >> >> + Help from the netdev folks with reviewing our proposed IPv6 changes > > What would be the mailing lists to call them to review? > >> >> + A cunning plan to stage the integration of all the various pieces >> >> + Beta testers (ie real environments that can deploy NFS over IPv6 in=20 real conditions) > > May be some on this nfs mailing list have this kind of=20 environmments. > What Bull can do is to run the robustness tests we are doing for=20 IPV4 on IPV6. > >> >> + A whiff of project planning to help us know what the real deadlines=20 are > Thanks. Regards, Prasad Potluri email: pvp at-sign us dot ibm dot com --=_alternative 002A7A9286257324_= Content-Type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Le Rouzic wrote:

>Chuck Lever a =E9crit :
>
>> Le Rouzic wrote:
>
>>>>> While there is some interest in IPv6 among some of Linux's
>>>>> corporate sponsors, there really isn't an overwhelming "killer"
>>>>> requirement for IPv6, so there isn't much motivation to get all
>>>>> this completed.  I have to admit I'm pretty burned out on all this
>>>>> because of how complicated it has all become.  I'd be happy if
>>>>> someone stepped forward and volunteered to help or take over the
>>>>> integration.
>>>>>  
>>>>
>>> Some basic tests have been also done on the submitted Aur=E9li= en's patchs
>>> and we will be running the robustness tests we are regularly doing
>>> for ipv4.
>>> See also at http://nfsv4.bullopensource.org/doc/rpc=5Ftestsuit= e.php
>>> for this list of tests (cthon04, ffsb, fsx...)
>>>
>>>>
>>>> We hope the interest of community about IPv6 will grow.
>>>> Feel free to send comments on the code.
>>>>  
>>>>
>>> Some customers are already asking it but  were waiting of its
>>> availibity.
>>> There are also products based on NFSV4 features which are interested in.
>>
>>
>> Yeah, it's kind of unfortunate that we can't be completely specific
>> about the requests/requirements/use cases.
>
>
>    Hi,
>    I think you are right but nevertheless customers often require to be compliant IPV6
>    in their system even they don't use IPV6. Soon, IPV6 deployed, NFS will be
>    one of the first applications used. Some others UNIX systems also have it,
>    so interoperabity it would be good Linux have it.
>    But that is true it will be interested to know when and who on the nfs lists is interested in
>    to use it.
>
>> But here's what I know:
>>
>> 1.  Apparently there is a bureaucratic (ie non-technical) requirement
>> from the US Federal government for IPv6 support in new computer
>> software deployments.  I forget when this requirement kicks in, or
>> what exactly "IPv6 support" really entails.

Hi,

Back in 2005, the US Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued a mandate calling on all Federal Agencies to have an operational IPv6 backbone network by June, 2008.  As the date approaches, USG customers are increasingly asking whether individual products/applications are "IPv6 compliant&qu= ot;.

The DoD has also indicated that it is developing an Approved Products List (APL) on which certified IPv6 compliant products will be listed.  The intention is that any product purchased by the DoD must first be certified and added to the list.

We have some nongovernment customers (names cannot be disclosed) requesting for IPv6 support in NFS, and few of them are willi= ng to participate in pilot program.  In addition to the customers, we have some requests from different product owners for this support, so that their products can be made "IPv6 complaint".

>>
>> 2.  The APAC market wants IPv6 because of an explosion of individual
>> IP network accessors, although arguably that can be addressed for a
>> little while with judicious application of NAT routers.
>>
>> Otherwise, the companies I've worked for recently have had no real
>> customer requests for IPv6 support in NFS.
>>
>> NFS community resources are focused largely on NFSv4.1 and pNFS design
>> and implementation.  However, here's some of what I think we need to
>> get IPv6 done:
>>
>> +  A coherent design for handling IPv6 address caching and export rules on the server side
>
>     After a first rejected solution and some new discussion on the NFSV4 mailing list,
>     Bull (Aur=E9lien) supplied a new document described the current
>     implementation. This little design document is still here:
>     http://nfsv4.bullopensource.org/doc/nfs=5Fipv6.php
>
>     Any new remarks are welcome.
>
>>
>> +  Help from the netdev folks with reviewing our proposed IPv6 changes
>
>     What would be the mailing lists to call them to review?<= br> >
>>
>> +  A cunning plan to stage the integration of all the various pieces
>>
>> +  Beta testers (ie real environments that can deploy NFS over IPv6 in real conditions)
>
>     May be some on this nfs mailing list have this kind of environmments.
>     What  Bull can do is to run the robustness tests we are doing for IPV4 on IPV6.
>
>>
>> +  A whiff of project planning to help us know what the real deadlines are
>

Thanks.

Regards,
Prasad Potluri
email: pvp at-sign us dot ibm dot com --=_alternative 002A7A9286257324_=-- --===============0676421891== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser. Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/ --===============0676421891== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ NFS maillist - NFS@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs --===============0676421891==--