<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>topic Re: Complex set of Export Rules in ONTAP Discussions</title>
    <link>https://community.netapp.com/t5/ONTAP-Discussions/Complex-set-of-Export-Rules/m-p/132908#M29005</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;Path not found is a DNS issue. If your end users aren't using FQDN's, have them start using the FQDN. I have seen this quite a bit recently for our users as well.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Regarding the export policies, yes, the first rule is wide open. The extra policies very likely aren't doing anything since the rules are applied in order of rule index.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Wed, 19 Jul 2017 15:30:13 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>alexj</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2017-07-19T15:30:13Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Complex set of Export Rules</title>
      <link>https://community.netapp.com/t5/ONTAP-Discussions/Complex-set-of-Export-Rules/m-p/132888#M28999</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;I inherited a two site NetApp cluster when I joined my current company. &amp;nbsp;The current Export Policies seem redundant and unnecessary. &amp;nbsp;I like things clean.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;The first Rule contains a clientmatch of 0.0.0.0/0 with all protocals selected, and all access checked, plus "Allow Superuser access". &amp;nbsp;To me this is all we should need and this thing would be running wide open.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;But there are additional indexes with other clientmatch IPs (like 15 of these) with the exact same settings. &amp;nbsp;To me these additional indexes are unecessary and redundant. &amp;nbsp;We are having some intermittant issues with CIFS shares where the client can't find the network path. &amp;nbsp;My theory is these extra indexes could be causing more work for the NetApp and could be part of are problem. &amp;nbsp;Is there any reason to keep these indexes?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Sorry for the newbie question.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 04 Jun 2025 14:49:53 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.netapp.com/t5/ONTAP-Discussions/Complex-set-of-Export-Rules/m-p/132888#M28999</guid>
      <dc:creator>Resqguy</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2025-06-04T14:49:53Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Complex set of Export Rules</title>
      <link>https://community.netapp.com/t5/ONTAP-Discussions/Complex-set-of-Export-Rules/m-p/132908#M29005</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Path not found is a DNS issue. If your end users aren't using FQDN's, have them start using the FQDN. I have seen this quite a bit recently for our users as well.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Regarding the export policies, yes, the first rule is wide open. The extra policies very likely aren't doing anything since the rules are applied in order of rule index.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 19 Jul 2017 15:30:13 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.netapp.com/t5/ONTAP-Discussions/Complex-set-of-Export-Rules/m-p/132908#M29005</guid>
      <dc:creator>alexj</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2017-07-19T15:30:13Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

