perfsonar-user - Re: [perfsonar-user] Latency task with source and target behind NAT
Subject: perfSONAR User Q&A and Other Discussion
List archive
- From: Mark Feit <>
- To: Ignacio Peluaga Lozada <>, "" <>
- Subject: Re: [perfsonar-user] Latency task with source and target behind NAT
- Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2020 12:44:29 +0000
Ignacio Peluaga Lozada writes:
NAT on both ends isn’t a use case we support. The testing infrastructure (i.e., pScheduler) and some of the tools can handle it, but others can’t. Unfortunately, the tools that measure latency fall into the “can’t” category. We’ve had semi-regular discussions over the last several years about how to support it, and the conclusion has always been that there are too many permutations to deal with (true NAT, PAT with hole punching, etc.) to make it work universally. True NAT is what many cloud environments provide and is also the easiest to deal with. What’s missing on our end is the developer cycles to dig into the packages and figure out what it will take to make it work. --Mark |
- [perfsonar-user] Latency task with source and target behind NAT, Ignacio Peluaga Lozada, 11/13/2020
- Re: [perfsonar-user] Latency task with source and target behind NAT, Mark Feit, 11/16/2020
- RE: [perfsonar-user] Latency task with source and target behind NAT, Ignacio Peluaga Lozada, 11/17/2020
- Re: [perfsonar-user] Latency task with source and target behind NAT, Mark Feit, 11/17/2020
- RE: [perfsonar-user] Latency task with source and target behind NAT, Ignacio Peluaga Lozada, 11/18/2020
- Re: [perfsonar-user] Latency task with source and target behind NAT, Mark Feit, 11/17/2020
- RE: [perfsonar-user] Latency task with source and target behind NAT, Ignacio Peluaga Lozada, 11/17/2020
- Re: [perfsonar-user] Latency task with source and target behind NAT, Mark Feit, 11/16/2020
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.19.