On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 07:31:35PM +0100, Richard Cochran wrote: > On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 05:29:30PM +0100, Delio Brignoli wrote: > > > > Yes, but I stated as much in my previous message: the switch was not > > compliant. However, linuxptp isn’t compliant either on the RX side > > which is the reason for my patch. > > The whole reason for the Path Trace is to avoid loops.
Having thought about it more, I would argue that we already are compliant. Let me explain. The Path Trace TLV is meant to avoid loops, but according to the standard it must be dropped if the clock list does not fit into the MTU. This is a property of the network, not of a particular node. If the TLV will be dropped in a switch, then there is no point for the master to send one in the first place. If a network cannot support the TLV, then the administrator must know this, and he must have some other means to prevent loops, otherwise the gPTP protocol will fail. Our implementation doesn't have a simple AVB on/off option, but rather each aspect can be configured individually. In a non-Path-Trace capable network, the admin simply sets "path_trace_enabled 0" in the configuration file. See? Thanks, Richard ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Developer Access Program for Intel Xeon Phi Processors Access to Intel Xeon Phi processor-based developer platforms. With one year of Intel Parallel Studio XE. Training and support from Colfax. Order your platform today. http://sdm.link/xeonphi _______________________________________________ Linuxptp-users mailing list Linuxptp-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linuxptp-users
