On Sun, Jan 07, 2024 at 11:33:31PM +0100, Cedric Blancher wrote: > Could you please make a concentrated effort and allow non-2049 port > numbers for NFSv4 mounts, in all of the lifecycle of a NFSv4 mount? > From nfsd, nfsd referrals, client mount/umount, autofs > mount/umount+LDAP spec One reason we have not pursued stack-wide NFSv4 support for alternate ports is that they are not firewall-friendly. A major design point of NFSv4 (and NFSv4.1, with its backchannel) is that it is supposed to be more firewall-friendly than NFSv3, its auxiliary protocols, and its requirement to deploy rpcbind. Also, these days it is relatively easy in Linux to deploy multiple NFS services on a single physical host by using containers (or just separate network namespaces). So instead of alternate ports, each NFS service is on port 2049, but it has its own IP address. That kind of deployment is supposed to be fully supported with NFSD today. Commercial NFS server implementations also typically make it easy to add distinct NFSv4 services at unique IP addresses but all on port 2049. -- Chuck Lever
