deploy: 74def11

epics-containers · Dec 4, 2024 · be5262d · be5262d
1 parent 80cfe06
commit be5262d
Show file tree

Hide file tree

Showing 7 changed files with 8 additions and 8 deletions.
diff --git a/4.1.0b1/.doctrees/explanations/epics_protocols.doctree b/4.1.0b1/.doctrees/explanations/epics_protocols.doctree
diff --git a/4.1.0b1/.doctrees/explanations/introduction.doctree b/4.1.0b1/.doctrees/explanations/introduction.doctree
diff --git a/4.1.0b1/.doctrees/explanations/kubernetes_cluster.doctree b/4.1.0b1/.doctrees/explanations/kubernetes_cluster.doctree
diff --git a/4.1.0b1/.doctrees/overview.doctree b/4.1.0b1/.doctrees/overview.doctree
diff --git a/4.1.0b1/.doctrees/tutorials/rtems_ioc.doctree b/4.1.0b1/.doctrees/tutorials/rtems_ioc.doctree
diff --git a/4.1.0b1/_sources/explanations/epics_protocols.md.txt b/4.1.0b1/_sources/explanations/epics_protocols.md.txt
@@ -41,17 +41,17 @@ Specification <https://docs.epics-controls.org/en/latest/internal/ca_protocol.ht
 
 Experiments with Channel Access servers running in containers reveal:
 - Port Mapping works for CA including UDP broadcast.
-- But UDP broadcast only works if the container does not remap the port to a different number inside the container.
-- Using CA Name Server works for Port Mapping
+- But UDP broadcast or unicast only works if the container does not remap the port to a different number inside the container.
+- Using EPICS_PVA_NAME_SERVERS always works with Port Mapping
 
 
 ## PV Access
 
 Specification <https://docs.epics-controls.org/en/latest/pv-access/Protocol-Messages.html>.
 
 Experimentation with PV Access servers running in containers reveal:
-- Port Mapping works for PVA always fails because PVA servers open a new random port for each circuit and this is not NAT friendly.
-- Using EPICS_PVA_NAME_SERVERS works for Port Mapping.
+- Port Mapping for PVA always fails because PVA servers open a new random port for each circuit and this is not NAT friendly.
+- Using EPICS_PVA_NAME_SERVERS always works with Port Mapping
 - But the client and server must both be PVXS
 - To talk to a non PVXS server, a pvagw running in the same container network may be used.
 

diff --git a/4.1.0b1/explanations/epics_protocols.html b/4.1.0b1/explanations/epics_protocols.html
@@ -519,17 +519,17 @@ <h2>Channel Access<a class="headerlink" href="#channel-access" title="Link to th
 <p>Experiments with Channel Access servers running in containers reveal:</p>
 <ul class="simple">
 <li><p>Port Mapping works for CA including UDP broadcast.</p></li>
-<li><p>But UDP broadcast only works if the container does not remap the port to a different number inside the container.</p></li>
-<li><p>Using CA Name Server works for Port Mapping</p></li>
+<li><p>But UDP broadcast or unicast only works if the container does not remap the port to a different number inside the container.</p></li>
+<li><p>Using EPICS_PVA_NAME_SERVERS always works with Port Mapping</p></li>
 </ul>
 </section>
 <section id="pv-access">
 <h2>PV Access<a class="headerlink" href="#pv-access" title="Link to this heading">#</a></h2>
 <p>Specification <a class="reference external" href="https://docs.epics-controls.org/en/latest/pv-access/Protocol-Messages.html">https://docs.epics-controls.org/en/latest/pv-access/Protocol-Messages.html</a>.</p>
 <p>Experimentation with PV Access servers running in containers reveal:</p>
 <ul class="simple">
-<li><p>Port Mapping works for PVA always fails because PVA servers open a new random port for each circuit and this is not NAT friendly.</p></li>
-<li><p>Using EPICS_PVA_NAME_SERVERS works for Port Mapping.</p></li>
+<li><p>Port Mapping for PVA always fails because PVA servers open a new random port for each circuit and this is not NAT friendly.</p></li>
+<li><p>Using EPICS_PVA_NAME_SERVERS always works with Port Mapping</p></li>
 <li><p>But the client and server must both be PVXS</p></li>
 <li><p>To talk to a non PVXS server, a pvagw running in the same container network may be used.</p></li>
 </ul>