> -Original Message-
> From: Richard Cochran [mailto:richardcoch...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2019 1:29 AM
> To: Keller, Jacob E
> Cc: Robert Carter ; linuxptp-
> de...@lists.sourceforge.net
> Subject: Re: [Linuxptp-devel] mcast_bind patch
>
> What
Richard --
Thanks for the summary. I missed this in the kernel.
Let me read through this.
Bob Carter
On 3/19/19 4:28 AM, Richard Cochran wrote:
On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 10:55:27PM +, Keller, Jacob E wrote:
My question is to understand why, in your case, the index is not
sufficient. The
On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 10:55:27PM +, Keller, Jacob E wrote:
> My question is to understand why, in your case, the index is not
> sufficient. The fix to specify the address works for your case, but
> it doesn't make sense to me, because we should already be bound to
> the correct interface.
PTP needs to "work" over a local 169.254.0.0/16 network. This isn't
unreasonable.
Maybe, but the kernel avoids it for some reason. I'd like to
understand the root cause.
Last night I downloaded the kernel.org 4.19.29 tarball and looked over
the bind code and setsockopt IP_MULTICAST_IF. I'm
On Sun, Mar 17, 2019 at 06:43:42PM -0400, Robert Carter wrote:
> 169.254.0.0/16 should be a perfectly reasonable management domain, which is
> what we are using it for in our product.
Of course it isn't my business how your product works, but over time I've
learned to avoid the whole zero-conf
> These are link-local addresses ala rfc3927. That must be the issue.
> The kernel doesn't bind to the given interface. It doesn't return an
> error but rather selects some other random interface?!
>
> Sounds like a kernel bug, or maybe there is some sysctl (rp_filter?)
> that allows multicast
Oh wait...
On Sat, Mar 16, 2019 at 05:22:06PM -0700, Richard Cochran wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 02:17:42PM -0400, Robert Carter wrote:
> > ptp4l is bound to eno1 which has two address:
> > 169.254.52.4/16
> > 169.254.53.4/16
These are link-local addresses ala rfc3927. That must be
On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 02:17:42PM -0400, Robert Carter wrote:
> ptp4l is bound to eno1 which has two address:
> 169.254.52.4/16
> 169.254.53.4/16
>
> But Sync and Announce traffic is being sourced from 10.10.100.188, which is
> on en02. Oy vey!
That is very strange. ATM I'm away from
> -Original Message-
> From: Robert Carter [mailto:robert.car...@octoscope.com]
> Sent: Friday, March 15, 2019 11:26 AM
> To: Keller, Jacob E ;
> linuxptp-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> Subject: Re: [Linuxptp-devel] mcast_bind patch
>
> > What version of the
What version of the Linux kernel are you using?
$ uname -a
Linux SuperMicro 4.15.0-30-generic #32-Ubuntu SMP Thu Jul 26 17:42:43
UTC 2018 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux
___
Linuxptp-devel mailing list
Linuxptp-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> -Original Message-
> From: Keller, Jacob E
> Sent: Friday, March 15, 2019 11:23 AM
> To: 'Robert Carter' ; linuxptp-
> de...@lists.sourceforge.net
> Subject: RE: [Linuxptp-devel] mcast_bind patch
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From:
> -Original Message-
> From: Robert Carter [mailto:robert.car...@octoscope.com]
> Sent: Friday, March 15, 2019 11:18 AM
> To: Keller, Jacob E ;
> linuxptp-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> Subject: Re: [Linuxptp-devel] mcast_bind patch
>
> > It sounds like t
It sounds like the problem isn't "it picked the subnet I didn't want"
but rather "different instances of ptp4l didn't consistently pick the
same subnet, but I don't really care which one they pick as long as
it's stable"?
If it's the former, I'd rather see some sort of option that lets you
> -Original Message-
> From: Robert Carter [mailto:robert.car...@octoscope.com]
> Sent: Friday, March 15, 2019 6:03 AM
> To: Keller, Jacob E ;
> linuxptp-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> Subject: Re: [Linuxptp-devel] mcast_bind patch
>
> > Can you justify
Can you justify why we should *always* want this? perhaps there's
reason to want a different subnet.
This patch was the minimal, localized change required to address a
problem we were seeing in our PTP application. Where an interface had
multiple IP addresses, this change made source address
> -Original Message-
> From: Robert Carter [mailto:robert.car...@octoscope.com]
> Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2019 8:05 AM
> To: linuxptp-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> Subject: [Linuxptp-devel] mcast_bind patch
>
> Hi --
>
> I'm submitting this patch for anothe
Hi --
I'm submitting this patch for another engineer on my team, thus his name
in the "signed off-by" field.
We ran into an issue where if an interface had multiple IP addresses,
the PTP multicast traffic would be sourced randomly which broke our PTP
implementation.
I'll field any
17 matches
Mail list logo
