From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Tue May 8 11:13:48 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7455F106566B for ; Tue, 8 May 2012 11:13:48 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rmacklem@uoguelph.ca) Received: from esa-jnhn.mail.uoguelph.ca (esa-jnhn.mail.uoguelph.ca [131.104.91.44]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E51E8FC16 for ; Tue, 8 May 2012 11:13:48 +0000 (UTC) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ap4EAKP+qE+DaFvO/2dsb2JhbABEhXKuOoIMAQEEASNWBRYOCgICDRkCWQYTCYgABQundJMggS+JVIRxgRgElX6QQoMF X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.75,550,1330923600"; d="scan'208";a="171082730" Received: from erie.cs.uoguelph.ca (HELO zcs3.mail.uoguelph.ca) ([131.104.91.206]) by esa-jnhn-pri.mail.uoguelph.ca with ESMTP; 08 May 2012 07:13:47 -0400 Received: from zcs3.mail.uoguelph.ca (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by zcs3.mail.uoguelph.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12CCAB3EFE; Tue, 8 May 2012 07:13:47 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 8 May 2012 07:13:47 -0400 (EDT) From: Rick Macklem To: Bob Friesenhahn Message-ID: <1387389132.59565.1336475627040.JavaMail.root@erie.cs.uoguelph.ca> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [172.17.91.202] X-Mailer: Zimbra 6.0.10_GA_2692 (ZimbraWebClient - FF3.0 (Win)/6.0.10_GA_2692) Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: NFSv4 Questions X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 08 May 2012 11:13:48 -0000 Bob Friesenhahn wrote: > On Mon, 7 May 2012, Rick Macklem wrote: > >> > > It is my understanding that NFSv4 servers are not supposed to > > require > > a "reserved" port#. However, at a quick glance, I can't find that > > stated > > in RFC 3530. (It may be implied by the fact that NFSv4 uses a "user" > > based > > security model and not a "host" based one.) > > > > As such, the client should never need to "waste" a reserved port# on > > a NFSv4 > > connection. > > Firewalls might use the reserved port as part of a filtering > algorithm. > Hmm, since the IETF working group was determined to "get rid of this bunk w.r.t. reserved port #s being used to enhance security", I might argue that said firewalls were misconfigured/broken. However, I can see an argument that, instead of silently ignoring the option, it should be obeyed, but with a note in the man page that it shouldn't be used for NFSv4. rick > Bob > -- > Bob Friesenhahn > bfriesen@simple.dallas.tx.us, > http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen/ > GraphicsMagick Maintainer, http://www.GraphicsMagick.org/