On Fri, 17 Nov 2023 at 05:50, Richard Cochran <richardcoch...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Nov 17, 2023 at 01:41:19AM +0100, Andrew Zaborowski wrote: > > Do you want to require the user to enforce that the port numbering is > > the same between the ptp4l processes? > > No.
(I meant: do you want to require that the user takes care to maintain the order of interfaces on the command line / in the config file, which I think you do -- Ok) > > > In our use case spec compliance > > is the priority, including the unique clockIdentity for CMLDS > > requirement, so we'd definitely need to be running a separate ptp4l > > process for CMLDS in this schema. > > The clockIdentity is not exposed, so what do you mean by "compliance"? It is exposed on the wire in the Pdelay messages. Compliance tests look at this. They also simulate a few hypothetical scenarios like a domain 0 PTP port trying to communicate with a CMLDS link port since 1588 talks about this. Best regards _______________________________________________ Linuxptp-devel mailing list Linuxptp-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linuxptp-devel
