Thanks Jack. I think extending this to say that if we use a BC chain (a BC in each LSR) to propogate the timing information, then all the PTP messages (general & event) would be single-hop PTP LSPs between the BCs. This is one specific use case.
Section 4 describes another use case, where we use a TC chain (a TC in each LSR) to propogate the timing information, where the OC/BC are only in the LER. Perhaps both use cases could be described in section 4. Regards, ZARLINK Semiconductor Peter Meyer Timing & Synchronization Communication Products Group Office: +1-613-270-7203 | Fax: +1-613-592-1010 [email protected] | www.zarlink.com Jack Kohn <[email protected]> 11/10/2011 12:13 PM To <[email protected]> cc "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Subject Re: [TICTOC] I-D Action: draft-ietf-tictoc-1588overmpls-02.txt Peter, 4) In section 4, there is a comment that OC and BC would reside within LERs and TCs would reside with LSRs. Unfortunately I'm not too familiar with MPLS routing concepts. How does this fit with the comment in section 7 "PDELAY_REQ and PDELAY_RESP are exchanged between adjacent PTP clocks (i.e. Master, Slave, Boundary, or Transparent) and MAY be transported over single hop PTP LSPs.". Would it be correct to say that for PTP messages exchanged between peer-delay BC and peer-delay BC within LSRs, that a single hop PTP LSP would be used? I think this Yes, i think this is correct. is related to section 1 where peer-to-peer boundary clocks are not listed (some folks think this mode is supported in IEEE 1588-2008, although not explicitly defined). I know ITU is considering peer-delay BCs for the distribution of time, in which case I would think the BC is within each LSR as one possible use case. Jack
_______________________________________________ TICTOC mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tictoc
