I do not support dropping UDP.  Thanks.

Matt

On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 10:34 PM, William Allen Simpson
<william.allen.simp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 8/8/17 1:58 PM, Daniel Gryniewicz wrote:
>>
>> On 08/08/2017 01:17 PM, William Allen Simpson wrote:
>>>
>>> NSM should be accessible by TCP.  Why are we using UDP?
>>>
>>> Is there a downstream need?
>>>
>>
>> Yes, there is a downstream need for NSM.
>>
> Would prefer folks answer the question asked.  I didn't ask about NSM.
> Note the lack of a question mark....
>
> It very explicitly asked:
>
> "Why are we using UDP? Is there a downstream need?"
>
> AFAICT from grep'ing the NFS documents, NFSv3 NSM *MUST* support TCP.
> We do not support NFSv2.  We should be using TCP.
>
> Do we have a downstream need for NFSv2 support for NSM only?
>
> If not, I'm going to drop this unsupported and frankly kludgy code.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
> engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
> _______________________________________________
> Nfs-ganesha-devel mailing list
> Nfs-ganesha-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs-ganesha-devel

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Nfs-ganesha-devel mailing list
Nfs-ganesha-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs-ganesha-devel

Reply via email to