Subject: [nfsv4] NFSv4 over UDP

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2003 14:54:59 -0400 (EDT)

Although I agree that the RFC doesn't allow UDP, I will note that I've
found it useful for testing. It is much easier to generate quirky cases,
such as a retry of an RPC with a seqid# in it, to test to see that the
server has held onto the last reply, etc.

On the other hand... Way back when (1999 maybe) I emailed suggesting that
TCP be required for a variety of reasons, including tying server state
to a TCP connection. (ie A connection loss/reconnect would imply the
client has to recover all state "open/lock/..." at that point.) The email
was probably so poorly worded that nobody had a clue what I was talking
about:-) However, I recall the response as "Oh no, ONC RPC can run over
any transport, including UDP and we can't move away from that", or something
like that. How times change. Just think of how much simpler NFSv4 would be
if the RPC/transport provided "exactly once" semantics and recognized
when state recovery was required?

Oh well, I think what's in the RFC works, so it came out ok in the end, rick

_______________________________________________
nfsv4 mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4

---

From: "Talpey, Thomas" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2003 12:39:21 -0700

>when state recovery was required?

In fact, that's just what we proposed in an internet draft a couple of months
ago:

	"NFSv4 RDMA and Session Extensions", Thomas Talpey, Spencer Shepler,
	15-May-03. (111000 bytes)  
	<http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-talpey-nfsv4-rdma-sess-00.txt> 

In fact, RDMA transports do just what you describe, so the layering of a
session between transport and NFSv4 actually gives the best of both worlds:
exactly once transport behavior, over all transports. Heck, we could even
consider bringing back UDP - as you (sorta) suggest! (And with which I could
agree...)

Tom.