This archive contains answers to questions sent to Unidata support through mid-2025. Note that the archive is no longer being updated. We provide the archive for reference; many of the answers presented here remain technically correct, even if somewhat outdated. For the most up-to-date information on the use of NSF Unidata software and data services, please consult the Software Documentation first.
Brice, > May have some good news and I do have an additional question, now that I > 'think' I have a better understanding. I got Richard to change his ldmd.conf > requests so that they were mirror images of each other on the two clients and > had him restart his LDM sessions. I'm not sure what you mean by "mirror images of each other on the two clients". Please elucidate. > I could see in the logs that the two clients made connections through the > tunnel and that the requests were reversed. I'm not sure what you mean by "the requests were reversed". Please elucidate. > So far I have not seen the obsolete termination messages. I am going to > continue to monitor the logs today. That's good news! > So with this potential success, I have a question. As I add additional > external customers to this tunneling scenario it is going to become > increasingly difficult to make sure that the arrangements of their requests > are different. So I had a thought (painful and dangerous that is). Could I > add a different bogus pattern to each of the requests that would make them > sufficiently different to still work? For instance, if I assigned each > client a designator that would indicate the client, I should have both a > different pattern and a quick look at who is being fed. As an example, > Richard is running servers, Sun and Moon, if he changed his pattern: > > Sun client: request FT4 "Sun|^WT.* " 134.xxx.xxx.aaa > Moon client: request FT4 "Moon|^WT.* " 134.xxx.xxx.aaa, > > then LDM should see those as different patterns and let them through. > Because I know there will never be any 'Sun' or 'Moon' patterns in our data, > I am thinking this would work. Your thoughts? We plan on testing it later > today or tomorrow if things look good with the current configurations. Might > be a useful thing to suggest to folks behind NAT's too. Interesting idea! I see no reason why it shouldn't work -- as long as you can guarantee that, for example, the strings "Sun" and "Moon" will never, ever appear *anywhere* in the product-identifiers. The matching would probably be quicker and less risky for the patterns "^Sun|^WT" and "^Moon|^WT", which, by the way, are equivalent to "^(Sun|WT)" and "^(Moon|WT)". > Thanks again for everything you folks do with LDM. We couldn't live without > it. Oh, I'm sure you'd find something else. :-) > Just for your information, it is going to become the standard streaming data > communication protocol between the NASA centers doing spaceflight support > (JSC, KSC and MSFC), and the Cape Canaveral Air Force Station weather system. Yikes! Just what I need: more support emails! :-) Seriously, we're honored. You know about our training workshops, right? We also visit for on-site training. > Brice > > Brice Biggerstaff, CISSP > Johnson Space Center > Weather Decision Support System > MIDDS Software Support Lead > 281-853-3011 (w) > 713-764-2601 (p) > address@hidden (alpha pager for text and email) > > Res Confacti Erimus > “We Get Things Done!” Regards, Steve Emmerson Ticket Details =================== Ticket ID: BIG-900661 Department: Support LDM Priority: Normal Status: Closed