[NTLUG:Discuss] nfs from one network to another

[Eric Schnoebelen]

terry writes:
- On Sun, Dec 20, 2009 at 2:35 PM, ./aal <al_h at technologist.com> wrote:
- > On Sun, Dec 20, 2009 at 6:32 AM, terry <trryhend at gmail.com> wrote:
- > > I took a stab at just forwarding port 2049 but that didn't do it, I
- > > still can't mount the share.  Is there a different port that needs to
- > > be forwarded?
- > >
- > > I'm wondering if the mount request uses  one port while another port
- > > is used to access the share?  Or...?
- > >
- > > In other words:
- > > I'm trying to mount an nfs share from one network to another. I first
- > > tried just forwarding port 2049 to the server's IP address, but that
- > > did not do it.  (I used iptables on the firewall that is between the
- > > two networks). So?
- >
- > Are you allowing both udp and tcp fwding?
- >
- 
- At this point I've only made provision for  tcp, and am now thinking that I
- was trying to do what's not supposed to be done - nfs is probably designed
- to be used over one network and not intended to be bridged to another.
- Correct me if I'm wrong but I think it's just  a service that should remain
- on a single network and one should not try to poke wholes enough to cram
- through into another.

NFS works over routed networks.. I've seen it done in large
environments.

But, by default, NFS runs over UDP, and not TCP.  (although on
most OS's you can specify connections over TCP in the mount
options.)

Make sure you've got the forwarding going bidirectionally as
well.

Oh, and it is possible (at least on some OS's) to specify an
alternate port for NFS to use, again, in the mount options.

--
Eric Schnoebelen		eric at cirr.com		http://www.cirr.com
  There are two ways of constructing a software design: one way is to make 
  it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the other is 
  to make it so complicated there are no obvious deficiencies - CAR Hoare