On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 11:55:37AM +0000, Jesuiter, Henry (ALC NetworX GmbH) wrote: > Setup (kind of abnormal, as state in IEEE 1588-2008 😉): > - Boundary Clock > - 2 Ports into the same subnet
May I ask why you placed two ports into the same network? Is that supposed to be some kind of redundancy idea? > Unfortunately there is an extension in clause 9.5.2.3 (BC specific) that > states that above situation is not > covered by the BMCA and therefore should be solved the following way: > a) port with lowest port ID shall become PS_MASTER > b) all other ports on that clock shall become PS_PASSIVE Right, I didn't implement that clause because there is no reason to put two BC ports into the same network. Having said that, if you can explain the use case and then implement the clause, we can add it. My goal for linuxptp is to be a kind of reference implementation of 1588, but there are some stipulations that absolutely pointless. > My question: > Did I miss some configuration (or any other) option, that fixes the above > behavior (or maybe there is already > a solution in current beta)? (You overlooked the possibility of placing your two ports into different networks ;) Thanks, Richard ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ Linuxptp-devel mailing list Linuxptp-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linuxptp-devel
