[TIGGE #HCK-977400]: One simple idea

Hi Yangxin,

As you can see, I am catching up on my support email :-:

> Regarding the data transfer problems with port 388 that we had
> ever encountered before we use port 8080, we have thought about
> another possibility.
> 
> Would it possble that there were some restriction somewhere between
> CMA and UCAR or CMA and ECMWF, but later that problem disappear for
> some reason (I'm not sure). 

Yes, this is possible.  In fact, we have seen several other examples of
pointing out instances of port 388 packet shaping that mysteriously
disappeared when the network folks were confronted with proof that
the packet shaping was discovered.  This kind of situation is a bit
frustrating since those responsible for the packet shaping never
admit that they were doing something that interrupted the flow of
legitimate data between organizations.

> I mean, maybe we can try a test with another avaiable server here
> in CMA (210.73.54.25, an address next to tigge-ldm.cma.gov.cn) with
> port 388.

Very good.

> Maybe we can make sure whether or not that problem still exist by
> this test. What do you think?

I think your plan is excellent!  Please keep us all informed about the
results!!

Cheers,

Tom
****************************************************************************
Unidata User Support                                    UCAR Unidata Program
(303) 497-8642                                                 P.O. Box 3000
address@hidden                                   Boulder, CO 80307
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unidata HomePage                       http://www.unidata.ucar.edu
****************************************************************************


Ticket Details
===================
Ticket ID: HCK-977400
Department: Support IDD TIGGE
Priority: Normal
Status: Closed