Hello Greg,

On Fri, Nov 05, 2010 at 07:25:29AM -0400, Greg Troxel wrote:
> That sounds like a reasonable step.  Getting IPv6 support would be a big

Nice to hear that you feel the same way.

> deal to me, almost as important as a FUSE-based client :-)

:)

> I am a bit worried about the dependence on ordering and DNS.  I wonder
> if you can instead:
> 
>   the SCM is configured with a list of {serverid, server address}, where
>   serverid is maybe uint16_t generation, unit16_t serverid.

The servers are actually already enumerated in this way,
the "servers" file contains the names and 8-bit numbers which
are used to refer to the servers - and could be used on the clients
too to index a names/addresses/ports array.

>   there is a new SCM rpc to fetch this, and clients do the fetch

Yes, an rpc yielding this very list would be "almost" sufficient.

It would be very desirable that the "servers" file then contains port
numbers too (btw note, no numeric addresses - it is important to have
an isolated layer - DNS - where the possibly dynamic addresses could be
managed without touching the realm setup; the ports, in contrast,
shall be numeric).

> I get the impression
> a new RPC is no big deal - it's changing the wire protocol to allow
> variable-sized addresses that is scary.

I second this.

Regards,
Rune