Hi Stewart, I think with our mechanism you can support NTP as well. NTP does not need TC processing and only needs Transmit and Receive timestamps, which are local to the LSP ingress and Egress nodes. The UDP port number for NTP is different from PTP and therefore no TC processing will be applied to NTP packets.
So our mechanism could be generalized to NTP a well. The co-routed symmetry is needed for both NTP and PTP. The PTP label is needed for the LSP egress node (for both NTP and PTP) to sample the timestamp. Thx Shahram -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Stewart Bryant Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2011 9:48 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [TICTOC] Transporting PTP messages (1588) over MPLS Networks On 01/02/2011 15:52, Bhatia, Manav (Manav) wrote: > Hi Yakov, > > And I still stand by what I said earlier that I don't think NTP needs to be > included here. I'd rather that we keep NTP and 1588 separate and only merge > them if we think its absolutely essential that a common uniform solution is > developed for the two protocols. Manav It is the normal practice of the IETF to design a single common mechanism for a problem, so you need to justify why we need to develop a special purpose protocol rather than develop for instance a time correction protocol. It would be better in my view to design a correction mechanism that sits as preamble to an opaque payload and then fix up the timing packet in the Timing equivalent of a PW NSP. That would work for any protocol that needed time of flight correction. Stewart _______________________________________________ TICTOC mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tictoc _______________________________________________ TICTOC mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tictoc
