On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 12:18:16PM +0100, Petr Kulhavy wrote:
> that sounds like a good solution. Are you going to include it in the
> mainstream?
If it works for you, then yes.
Thanks,
Richard
--
Check out the vibrant t
Hi Richard,
that sounds like a good solution. Are you going to include it in the
mainstream?
Regards
Petr
On 13/02/18 19:19, Richard Cochran wrote:
On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 06:04:55PM +0100, Petr Kulhavy wrote:
Let me develop this idea further. What about splitting the transportSpecific
into
On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 06:04:55PM +0100, Petr Kulhavy wrote:
> Let me develop this idea further. What about splitting the transportSpecific
> into the two nibbles, where lower nibble is as now and the upper nibble is a
> mask telling which bits to ignore on RX.
I think it would less confusing to
Hi Richard,
On 13/02/18 17:27, Richard Cochran wrote:
On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 10:50:23AM +0100, brain wrote:
Dante sends ts=8 and other manufacturers send ts=0. Unless Linuxptp
properly implements the ts handling (i.e. ignoring bits 1-3) it
cannot work in such networks. Simply because fix-conf
On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 10:50:23AM +0100, brain wrote:
> Dante sends ts=8 and other manufacturers send ts=0. Unless Linuxptp
> properly implements the ts handling (i.e. ignoring bits 1-3) it
> cannot work in such networks. Simply because fix-configuring to one
> value (Dante or non-Dante) filters o
xptp-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Předmět: Re: [Linuxptp-devel] Transport
specific in UDP
On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 08:05:36PM +0100, Petr Kulhavy wrote:
> As you probably know, it is closed.
I don't know very much about it, and that is why I asked. Maybe there
is a good reason to set these bits. If dante ne
On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 08:05:36PM +0100, Petr Kulhavy wrote:
> As you probably know, it is closed.
I don't know very much about it, and that is why I asked. Maybe there
is a good reason to set these bits. If dante networks use value X,
then the easiest and most logical way to inter-operate is t
On 12/02/18 19:12, Richard Cochran wrote:
On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 08:12:38AM +0100, brain wrote:
I understand that you might find this requirement to be
pointless. However in protocols it is not uncommon that certain bits
are reserved for future use. In order to provide forward compatible
implem
On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 08:12:38AM +0100, brain wrote:
> I understand that you might find this requirement to be
> pointless. However in protocols it is not uncommon that certain bits
> are reserved for future use. In order to provide forward compatible
> implementations it is a common practice to
-devel] Transport
specific in UDP
On Sun, Feb 11, 2018 at 05:55:25PM +0100, Petr Kulhavy wrote:
> It seems linuxptp does not comply to the IEEE1588-2008 standard when it
> comes to processing of the transport specific field in UDP transport.
>
> The Annex D.4 of the standard says "
On Sun, Feb 11, 2018 at 05:55:25PM +0100, Petr Kulhavy wrote:
> It seems linuxptp does not comply to the IEEE1588-2008 standard when it
> comes to processing of the transport specific field in UDP transport.
>
> The Annex D.4 of the standard says "bit 1-3, reserved, The bit shall be
> transmitted
Hi,
It seems linuxptp does not comply to the IEEE1588-2008 standard when it
comes to processing of the transport specific field in UDP transport.
The Annex D.4 of the standard says "bit 1-3, reserved, The bit shall be
transmitted as zero and ignored by the receiver".
Linuxptp does not ignore
12 matches
Mail list logo
