----- Original Message ----- | > | > Pardon my ignorance in this matter, but what is it that is | > | > unpleasing? The complexity of it? From my understanding, NFSv4 | > | > is | > | > more firewall friendly, using only port 2049, and can also be | > | > kerberized for additional security. Can OpenBSD's NFS | > | > implementation | > | > do that? | > | | > | NFSv4 is a gigantic joke on everyone. | > | > IMO, so is the notion of divine deities, but that doesn't answer the | > original posters question, nor my response to Henning. | > | > We implemented, NFSv4 using AD, Kerberos, GNU/Linux and Mac OS X, no | > OpenBSD | > though, and to me complexity was the biggest issue. It was very | > difficult | > because of all the potential points of breakage and | > inter-dependency. | | > Out of all of the protocols though it was the most transparent for | > our multi-platform support. | | Hahahahaha. That's a good one. | | I guess by "all the other protocols" you must be rejecting all the | rest | of your network traffic as "not protocols" or "not services".
Okay, let me rephrase it then. In order to support file services for all of the OS platforms we support, across all the campuses we support, Kerberized NFSv4 fit the bill best. -- James A. Peltier Systems Analyst (FASNet), VIVARIUM Technical Director Simon Fraser University - Burnaby Campus Phone : 778-782-6573 Fax : 778-782-3045 E-Mail : jpelt...@sfu.ca Website : http://www.fas.sfu.ca | http://vivarium.cs.sfu.ca http://blogs.sfu.ca/people/jpeltier MSN : subatomic_s...@hotmail.com
