Subject: misc/2884: [dM] mount_nfs(8) describes -c misleadingly
To: None <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: der Mouse <mouse@Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA>
Date: 10/22/1996 10:17:18
>Synopsis: [dM] mount_nfs(8) describes -c misleadingly
>Responsible: misc-bug-people (Misc Bug People)
>Arrival-Date: Tue Oct 22 07:20:02 1996
>Originator: der Mouse
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.
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
See the discussion a week or two ago on current-users for more.
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
Add some wording explaining, briefly, other circumstances in
which -c can be useful/necessary.
01 EE 31 F6 BB 0C 34 36 00 F3 7C 5A C1 A0 67 1D