On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 05:49:42PM -0500, Trond Myklebust wrote: > That said, I think I'd prefer the single socket solution that we have > now. It would certainly make life easier for migration events, and > possibly pnfs. In neither of these cases do you know at mount time what > kind of callback service you will need later, so setting up an IPv4-only > service might turn out wrong. If I understand right, that's an argument for grabbing both ipv4 and ipv6 ports as early as possible. I don't think that's incompatible with using separate sockets for each. And doing so would simplify adding ipv6 later in situations when it isn't initially available. (But such situations might be rare?) --b. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
