----- Original Message ----- | On Oct 27 11:31:31, James A. Peltier wrote: | > ----- 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. | | You mean, NFSv4 seems more "transparent" to you (whatever that means) | than, say, NFSv2?
No, in that NFSv4 with Kerberos was an easier move from NFSv3 than to move to something like AFS, which seem would have required much more work to migrate the existing systems. -- 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
