Hi Richard,
Thanks for your valuable inputs. 802.1AS is chosen not for better performance
in this particular case, but because we should be using Automovitve Profile and
compliant to AVnu gPTP standard.But I agree with you, I am waiting for the
prototype HW to see how ptp4l BC functions with other gPTP automotive grade
devices and see how things work.Thanks,Nemo
On Tuesday, 7 February, 2023 at 10:39:51 pm GMT-5, Richard Cochran
<richardcoch...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Feb 07, 2023 at 03:59:23PM +0000, Nemo Crypto wrote:
> >As a practical matter, I don't see why you can't simply use linuxptp's
> >BC mode, configuring the two ports with 802.1as settings.
>
> >Who could tell the difference?
> Would the linuxptp's BC send all the TLVs required for 802.1AS?
What TLVs do you mean?
The ptp4l BC will append follow_up_info and PATH_TRACE, if you enable
them. See the default gPTP.cfg.
In my view, the whole TAB thing in 802.1as is of questionable value.
If you have a single hop, as in your use case, I doubt you could even
measure the difference in synchronization quality between TAB and BC.
Sure, if you have a chain topology of 15 hops, then you would start to
see benefits from using TAB over BC. But who has that kind of network?
Even then, would an 802.1as TAB outperform an ieee 1588 TC?
Color me skeptical.
HTH,
Richard
_______________________________________________
Linuxptp-users mailing list
Linuxptp-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linuxptp-users
