The syntax of the CellServDB file format [1] is well-known but is it a standard from the perspective of this group? The answer to the question will determine where discussion of replacing the file format should take place.
The current format is limited in what can be described and is
unfortunately interpreted differently depending upon the client or
server that is in use.
For example:
. servers only examine the IP addresses in the file
whereas the clients sometimes examine the IP address and
sometimes examine the DNS hostname
. some clients treat a cell name followed by an empty
server list as an indication that DNS lookups should be
used and others do not
. some clients understand server clones and some do not
. some clients support linked cells and some do not
Here is some of the new information that I think should be included in a
future replacement with per cell granularity:
. dns = {always, prefer-dns, prefer-local, never}
. default port values for afs services
. optional IPv6 addressing
. local Kerberos realm list
. service specific configuration data
. server specific data
- default rank
- clone status
Should this discussion take place as a standard or should it be treated
as an implementation specific format?
Jeffrey Altman
[1] http://docs.openafs.org/Reference/5/CellServDB.html
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
