On Thu, 1 Jun 2023 15:13:31 -0400, Dylan Robinson wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Jun 2023 06:34:19 -0700, Richard Cochran wrote:
>
> > It sounds like 802.1-AS has a bug.
>
> I don't think this is a "bug", as it seems more like an unfortunate...
I am realizing I might have been confused as to what you were ca
On Thu, 1 Jun 2023 06:34:19 -0700, Richard Cochran wrote:
> It sounds like 802.1-AS has a bug.
I don't think this is a "bug", as it seems more like an unfortunate
oversight
in the original 802.1AS-2011 specification where the computation had a sign
difference. The 802.1AS-2020 specification grapp
On Wed, May 31, 2023 at 12:33:46PM -0400, Dylan Robinson wrote:
> This is generally not an issue, since 802.1AS implementations typically set
> this field to zero, however, there is at least one switch IC on the market,
> the KSZ9567, with a silicon errata that results in a non-zero value in this
On Thu, Jun 01, 2023 at 11:17:48AM +0200, Erez wrote:
> But if your patch follows the IEEE standard, then perhaps Richard will
> apply.
It sounds like 802.1-AS has a bug.
Is there a "Tissue" that addresses this problem?
Why would a peer delay need correction at all?
After all, the messages are
Hi Dylan,
We are developers.
Please submit a patch.
You can add a new configuration option for supporting the 802.1AS equation.
As you have the KSZ9567, you can test with it :-)
We can only verify with our setups.
Bear in mind that we usually do not try to support malfunctioning hardware.
But if
