Experimental Physics and
Industrial Control System

"Hartman, Steven M." <[email protected]> · Tue, 14 Oct 2014 17:15:52 +0000

On Oct 14, 2014, at 9:27 AM, Mark S. Engbretson <[email protected]> wrote:

> The network topology is set up so that you *DON"T* normally have any sort of
> interaction between the 2 . . . . so why now do you need interaction between
> the 2?  What is so important that the camonitor system has to stay on that
> subnet instead of being put onto the other one?

I agree with Mark that HaveF would receive better responses if the request to tech-talk included a description of what they are trying to accomplish with this particular configuration. But I will jump in with a possible solution.

The network diagram in the initial post looks similar to a setup we have here at SNS. The accelerator controls network is in a private network. The individual beam line controls networks are in their own, separate private networks. On the controls network, there is a CA server (actually, many CA servers) which provides accelerator status PVs (beam energy, current, . . .) which is equivalent to your '192.168.1.200 CAS'. CA clients, equivalent to your '192.168.1.100 camonitor', on the beam line networks would like to be able to monitor some of these PVs. 

The solution is a CA gateway on the equivalent of your 202.201.1.4 box which provides read-only access to the accelerator PVs, visible by the beam line clients.

http://www.aps.anl.gov/epics/extensions/gateway/index.php

-- 
Steven Hartman
[email protected]

Experimental Physics and Industrial Control System

Experimental Physics and
Industrial Control System