On 10/13/2011 2:28 PM, Kevin Gross wrote: > Definitely important issues for some synchronization protocols but it > seems though two-step 1588 would work through such a connection. The > followup message will contain an accurate (and encrypted) timestamp. > Encryption delays would not result in significant loss of accuracy with > respect to an unencrypted connection also using two step. >
Has anyone tested or measured that? I have not seen any information how this will work without losing accuracy. Don't forget the followon message will also have to be encrypted and decrypted when sent making for additional uncertainties and errors. I have not reviewed how the two-step IEEE 1588 protocol works so I don't have a good understanding of the effects of IPsec encryption on such packets. Danny > Kevin Gross > > On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 8:43 AM, Danny Mayer <ma...@ntp.org > <mailto:ma...@ntp.org>> wrote: > > On 9/18/2011 9:41 PM, Cui Yang wrote: > > > IEEE-1588 (PTP) also cannot benefit from this as it is basically a > hardware-stamping protocol and now you are routing it through a software > tunnel which means it has to be timestamped before it is IPsec > encapsulated which decreases it's accuracy. It's no longer on-wire. > > _______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list IPsec@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
