I do not support dropping UDP. Thanks. Matt
On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 10:34 PM, William Allen Simpson <[email protected]> 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 > [email protected] > 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 [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs-ganesha-devel
