Alexander Leidinger wrote: > Rick Macklem wrote: [stuff snipped] > > > > Other than testing diskless NFS root file systems, I do not have a > > strong opinion w.r.t. whether the default should change. > > > > If the default stays as NFSv3, a fallback to NFSv4 could be done, which > > would handle the NFSv4 only server case. (No one uses NFSv2 any more, > > so the fallback to NFSv2 is almost irrelevant, imho.) > > As you particiate in interoperability tests, would it make sense to > check how those other implementations handle this case? I naively > assume you have some contacts or a mailinglist you could use for that. Not sure what you are asking, but... The only other client I am familiar with is the Linux one. It does NFSv4, then NFSv3 (I think they have dropped NFSv2 support). Linux also does handle NFSv4 root file systems.
The other clients I know of (VMware and Windows) do not paticipate in the IETF Working group's interoperability testing, unfortunately. (And I have no contact with either of these groups.) rick Bye, Alexander. -- http://www.Leidinger.net alexan...@leidinger.net: PGP 0x8F31830F9F2772BF http://www.FreeBSD.org netch...@freebsd.org : PGP 0x8F31830F9F2772BF
