Yo Jiri!
On Mon, 10 Aug 2015 19:59:07 +0200
Jiri Benc jb...@redhat.com wrote:
On Mon, 10 Aug 2015 10:32:54 -0700, Gary E. Miller wrote:
In keeping with the principla of least surprise, I would say go
with the flow and implement IPV6_V6ONLY.
You could also argue that least surprise means
On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 02:34:58PM +0200, Jiri Benc wrote:
Whether or not ptp4l should set IPV6_V6ONLY unconditionally needs some
more thinking, but my first impression is it would need to use IPv4
multicast addresses (v4-mapped to IPv6) to send the packets to the v4
hosts and not the IPv6
On Tue, 4 Aug 2015 10:34:17 +0200, Miroslav Lichvar wrote:
When I run ptp4l -6 -S -i ens5 -m, ss reports only IPv6 sockets for
ptp4l:
# ss -lup | grep ptp4l
UNCONN 0 0 ::%ens5:ptp-event :::*
users:((ptp4l,pid=5862,fd=10))
UNCONN 0 0
On Tue, Aug 04, 2015 at 08:43:11PM +, Gary E. Miller wrote:
cat ${CONF1}
[global]
uds_address /var/run/ptp4l
#network_transport L2
network_transport UDPv6
clock_servo ntpshm
ntpshm_segment 0
cat ${CONF2}
[global]
Yo Miroslav!
On Tue, 4 Aug 2015 10:34:17 +0200
Miroslav Lichvar mlich...@redhat.com wrote:
Interesting, can you share your setup?
When I run ptp4l -6 -S -i ens5 -m, ss reports only IPv6 sockets for
ptp4l:
# ss -lup | grep ptp4l
UNCONN 0
0 ::%ens5:ptp-event
Yo Miroslav!
On Tue, 4 Aug 2015 10:34:17 +0200
Miroslav Lichvar mlich...@redhat.com wrote:
Interesting, can you share your setup?
When I run ptp4l -6 -S -i ens5 -m, ss reports only IPv6 sockets for
ptp4l:
For comparison, here is what I get when trying both UPDv4 and UDPv6:
export
On Sun, 2015-08-02 at 02:58 +, Gary E. Miller wrote:
Yo Richard!
On Sat, 1 Aug 2015 20:09:38 +0200
Richard Cochran richardcoch...@gmail.com wrote:
The configuration file scheme can't do what you want it to do, even
without the ntpshm_segment option.
Yeah, sadly...
On Sun, Aug 02, 2015 at 02:58:34AM +, Gary E. Miller wrote:
is the same as entering
ptp4l -i eno1 -i eno2
Sadly, no. When you do that ptp4l only uses one SHM, not two. Now
if ptp4l read the [eno1] and [eno2] sections it would work.
There is one ptp4l instance (and
Yo Miroslav!
On Mon, 3 Aug 2015 11:47:43 +0200
Miroslav Lichvar mlich...@redhat.com wrote:
On Sun, Aug 02, 2015 at 02:58:34AM +, Gary E. Miller wrote:
is the same as entering
ptp4l -i eno1 -i eno2
Sadly, no. When you do that ptp4l only uses one SHM, not two. Now
if
On Sun, Aug 02, 2015 at 02:58:34AM +, Gary E. Miller wrote:
Yeah, but then both instances try to grab ports 319 and 320. I tried
putting one instance on UDPv4 and one UDPv6, but the UDPv6 seems to also
grab the UDPv4 port.
You can run two instances, each on its own port, using Layer2
Gary,
The configuration file scheme can't do what you want it to do, even
without the ntpshm_segment option.
This
[global]
uds_address /var/run/ptp4l
clock_servo ntpshm
[eno1]
ntpshm_segment 0
[eno2]
ntpshm_segment 1
is the same as entering
Yo Richard!
On Sat, 1 Aug 2015 20:09:38 +0200
Richard Cochran richardcoch...@gmail.com wrote:
The configuration file scheme can't do what you want it to do, even
without the ntpshm_segment option.
Yeah, sadly...
[eno1]
ntpshm_segment 0
[eno2]
ntpshm_segment 1
On Fri, 2015-07-31 at 18:16 +, Gary E. Miller wrote:
Yo All!
I'd like a config file change to the ptp4l config file.
In this case I have a server with two ethernet segments, and I want
each
one to be on its own SHM. I would like to be able to do this:
[global]
Yo Jacob E!
On Fri, 31 Jul 2015 18:46:21 +
Keller, Jacob E jacob.e.kel...@intel.com wrote:
Any thing I missed? Or can this be fixed?
I don't believe this is currently supportable,
Yup, currently broken.
since we only create
one clock for each instance of ptp4l, and that clock would
14 matches
Mail list logo
