Hello Richard, thank you very much! My switch is adding correction field to both Path_delay_req and path_delay_response.
Can I ask one more thing.. Since Path_delay_response_follow_up gets the correction field of path_delay_request, I cannot have the correction on Path_delay_response too and I should set it to 0 upon receiving the message am I right? Regards, Katarina sri, 24. lip 2020. u 14:39 Richard Cochran <richardcoch...@gmail.com> napisao je: > On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 10:08:14AM +0200, Kat Y wrote: > > I can see that both pDelayResp and pDelayRespFollowUp get corrected > though. > > The linuxptp stack does not "correct" these messages. > > For 2-step peer delay, the pDelayRespFollowUp contains a copy of the > correction field from the original pDelayReq. This allows the > requestor to know the value of the correction, and this behavior > follows the 1588 standard exactly. > > > I think that linuxptp is adding correction to pDelayRespFollowUp message > > not the switch. > > No, not adding, but rather copying. > > > Is this wrong, is it expected of linuxptp? Summed up correction will be > > doubled. Should I zero one of the correction fields or divide summed up > > correction by 2? > > Sounds like your switch is changing the correction field of the > pDelayResp. Use tcpdump, and you will see that linuxptp sends a zero > in the pDelayResp.correction field. > > > Also, can someone recommend a document (or shortly explain if it's not a > > problem) on nrate and nrate calculations because I cannot seem to find > > anything online? > > See 802.1AS-2011. > > Thanks, > Richard >
_______________________________________________ Linuxptp-users mailing list Linuxptp-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linuxptp-users
