On Thu, 2016-04-28 at 10:56 +0800, Ian Kent wrote: > > > > Another question: What is your expectation in a situation where only > > IPv6 is available, no IPv4 for the server ? Is the one mentioned in > > #25 of > > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=737679 > > expected to be still a working solution ? I might have an NFS server > > soon > > which, due to a routing conflict difficult to resolve, would only > > get > > an IPv6 address visible to the clients. I should test this case with > > a > > dedicated vm as server anyway ... > > I think we've covered that above. Actually, maybe not. There's a rather long story associated with the use of NFSv4 and the the associated server mount (or export) path. It depends on kernel version and nfs-utils version. Put simply Linux NFS originally only allowed the use of "/" for NFSv4 mounts but autofs couldn't work out if a translation was needed because of limited information available from the server. So Linux NFS was changed to behave like other implementations and allow the same paths as is used in NFSv3 (and v2). That has the benefit of allowed for consistent fall back from v4 to v3 as well. > > The scenario in that bug shows autofs behaving as expected due to lack > of IPv6 support in glibc I think. > > I hope that the autofs ppa version will perform the mount fine, as > long > as the server is responding but that's one thing we're here to sort > out, > ;) > > Ian > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe autofs" in -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe autofs" in
