On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 10:03:52AM +0000, Jesuiter, Henry (ALC NetworX GmbH) wrote: > according to IEEE 1588-2008 Annex D.4 it is possible to set the > transport specific bit to signal that PTP event (and Announce) > messages have to be padded. Now we are discussing here, if that > consequently allows to have a mixed mode PTP-Network, where one or > more hosts set this bit and others don't. While we see here, that > linuxptp denies such mixed mode (you have to choose it by your > config), we don't see that the standard would forbid it.
The transportSpecific option is a port-specific item, and consequently you can have each port configured individually, thus mixing PTP networks. In particular, you can implement a BC between 1588 and 802.1AS networks. > So, is there a standard-backed reason to choose that implementation > in linuxptp or has is it just a behaviour (f.e. by simplicity in > implementation, etc.), that should be changed in future versions? We don't support the hardwareCompatibility bit. It conflicts with gPTP according to 802.1AS. It is hack (I guess for a particular vendor) for compatitibiliy with some legacy PTP Version 1 hardware. Why on earth would you want it? Thanks, Richard ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ What NetFlow Analyzer can do for you? Monitors network bandwidth and traffic patterns at an interface-level. Reveals which users, apps, and protocols are consuming the most bandwidth. Provides multi-vendor support for NetFlow, J-Flow, sFlow and other flows. Make informed decisions using capacity planning reports.http://sdm.link/zohodev2dev _______________________________________________ Linuxptp-devel mailing list Linuxptp-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linuxptp-devel
