>Number:         2884
>Category:       misc
>Synopsis:       [dM] mount_nfs(8) describes -c misleadingly
>Confidential:   no
>Severity:       non-critical
>Priority:       low
>Responsible:    misc-bug-people (Misc Bug People)
>State:          open
>Class:          change-request
>Submitter-Id:   net
>Arrival-Date:   Tue Oct 22 07:20:02 1996
>Last-Modified:
>Originator:     der Mouse
>Organization:
	Dis-
>Release:        1.2_BETA
>Environment:
	Any with $NetBSD: mount_nfs.8,v 1.3 1996/02/18 11:59:10 fvdl Exp $
	as sbin/mount_nfs/mount_nfs.8, possibly others too.
>Description:
	mount_nfs(8) describes the -c option with

.It Fl c
For UDP mount points, do not do a
.Xr connect 2 .
This must be used for servers that do not reply to requests from the
standard NFS port number 2049.

	However, this leads people to think they don't need -c in some
	cases where they do.  Commonest is probably when mounting from
	multi-homed server, when the mount is attempted on the "far
	side" address of the server.  Many servers will reply from the
	"near side" address in this case, which (without -c) will cause
	NetBSD to ignore the replies...even though all this happens on
	port 2049.

	See the discussion a week or two ago on current-users for more.
>How-To-Repeat:
	Try to mount a server with a "far side" address.  Wonder why it
	falls over.  Read the man page, decide you don't need -c
	because (even according to tcpdump or etherfind) the replies
	are coming from port 2049.  Ask on the net, have someone
	suggest -c anyway, try it, and wonder why the manpage misled
	you.
>Fix:
	Add some wording explaining, briefly, other circumstances in
	which -c can be useful/necessary.

					der Mouse

			       mouse@rodents.montreal.qc.ca
		     01 EE 31 F6 BB 0C 34 36  00 F3 7C 5A C1 A0 67 1D
>Audit-Trail:
>Unformatted: