Hi Richard, Wolfgang, > On 31 Oct 2016, at 12:17, Richard Cochran <richardcoch...@gmail.com> wrote: > > https://github.com/audioscience/linuxptp > > I just briefly compared v1.4 with his asi1230-master, and nothing > earth shaking stood out.
Yes, but there is number of things I’d like to contribute upstream and didn’t get a chance to. There may be a window of opportunity coming up when I’ll be able to try the the latest release with some patches applied and get (at least some of) them accepted upstream. >> 2) Differences in the BMC algorithm >> >> Is it possible to specify a different best master clock algorithm than that >> of the default PTP profile? > > No, not yet. I have some patches in the works for allowing different > BMC variants, because some profiles will require it. > > However, the AS mode should work fine with the default BMC… I can confirm AS mode works with the default BMC. As Richard says below the differences result in extra delays but peers eventually “converge”. >> 4) Path Trace TLV >> >> Announce messages without a Path Trace TLV are ignored by my device if I set >> path_trace_enabled to 1. >> I think in 802.1AS a Path Trace TLV should be attached to announce messages, >> but announce messages should not be dropped if a received message does not >> have one. > > First you complain that we don't follow AS exactly, and then you > complain that we *do* follow it exactly! Actually we don’t follow it *exactly* :-P > Path Trace is specified in 10.5.3, and there is no hint of it being > optional. In fact, this is required in the PICS. Any master who > sends an Announce must conform. Look at page 240. > > MIMSTR-8 Does the Announce message body comply > with the requirements in 10.5.3.1 and > Table 10-7? > > @Delio, I see you allow announce without the TLV: > > > https://github.com/audioscience/linuxptp/commit/0b6d8ca73332391af9bddc25177df254b066d669 > > Can you tell us why? This is tricky because in some places 802.1AS-2011 seems to imply a TLV is mandatory but when you dig down into the implementation details you find that: in 10.3.13.2.1 (f) txAnnounce() appends the TLV *only if* it doesn’t exceed the transport’s MTU and in 10.3.10.2.1 (c) and (d) qualifyAnnounce() accepts an announce message without a TLV. So a TLV is present *if* it fits in the transport’s MTU but a compliant implementation has to accept an announce message without path trace TLV. I found this out when we encountered a (not yet compliant) switch which didn’t append path trace TLVs. When I investigated the standard I was surprised to find out we weren’t compliant either. Additionally the path trace TLV could be one of many TLVs appended to the announce message and it doesn’t have to be the first. Even with my patch applied linuxptp expects the path trace TLV to be the first one to appear. I would like to fix it but we considered it a non-urgent issue and had to shift focus to something else so it never got done. Regards — Delio ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Developer Access Program for Intel Xeon Phi Processors Access to Intel Xeon Phi processor-based developer platforms. With one year of Intel Parallel Studio XE. Training and support from Colfax. Order your platform today. http://sdm.link/xeonphi _______________________________________________ Linuxptp-users mailing list Linuxptp-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linuxptp-users
