From: Steve Dickson Subject: Re: Status of mount.nfs Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 16:46:59 -0400 Message-ID: <46B242C3.2070105@RedHat.com> References: <20070708191640.GA13962@uio.no> <18065.43199.104020.412029@notabene.brown> <20070715083114.GB4158@uio.no> <18074.50730.591965.39211@notabene.brown> <20070716092047.GA10353@uio.no> <18075.17719.855332.259470@notabene.brown> <20070722191733.GA31501@uio.no> <46A52816.6050500@oracle.com> <20070724172451.GA14026@uio.no> <46A7A5F8.4040204@oracle.com> <46A897CD.50201@RedHat.com> <46A96032.7080503@oracle.com> <46AA089E.50503@RedHat.com> <1185551769.6586.28.camel@localhost> <46AA1A70.5010705@RedHat.com> <1185553679.6586.34.camel@localhost> <46AA2642.60505@RedHat.com> <1185556406.6586.45.camel@localhost> <46AB3BE9.1060903@RedHat.com> <1185906627.6700.30.camel@localhost> <46AFA98E.1070904@oracle.com> <46B0674D.7000803@RedHat.com> <46B0E6DC.4080409@oracle.com> <46B0F747.3050704@RedHat.com> <46B20467.5050601@oracle.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Cc: nfs@lists.sourceforge.net To: chuck.lever@oracle.com 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 1IGhb9-0002WD-2A for nfs@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 02 Aug 2007 13:48:43 -0700 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]) by mail.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Exim 4.44) id 1IGhbC-0002CE-QR for nfs@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 02 Aug 2007 13:48:47 -0700 In-Reply-To: <46B20467.5050601@oracle.com> 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 Chuck Lever wrote: > I'm not suggesting that we don't support mounting through a firewall. > I'm wondering, though, how people expect it to work. Is it acceptable > to require a few extra mount options on clients to mount successfully > through a firewall, or should a mount with no options whatsoever always > work in this case? I think I agree with Trond, although I I'm not sure what he means by safe mount behavior... but I am of the opinion that mounts which need to go through a firewall will require extra options will be needed... > > And, does anyone have real and precise test cases to make sure we don't > break mounting through a firewall when changes are made to the mount > infrastructure? We don't have explicit test for this... but I can guarantee if we break it we'll hear about very quickly... ;-) steved. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/ _______________________________________________ NFS maillist - NFS@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs