Hi Greg, Even for NTP, there is a need to detect MPLS encapsulated NTP packets and timestamp them at server nodes. This draft allows such function. We know that TC is not defined for NTP, but this draft leaves it open for NTP to define TC if needed in the future.
Regards, Shahram From: Gregory Mirsky [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2013 11:23 AM To: Shahram Davari; Amit Oren; Bhatia, Manav (Manav); Roberts, Peter (Peter); [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: NTP in draft-ietf-tictoc-1588overmpls-04 Dear Authors, et al., The draft-ietf-tictoc-1588overmpls-04 is currently titled as "Transporting Timing messages over MPLS Networks" and states that both timing synchronization protocols, PTP and NTP, require use of PTP LSP to transport timing messages over an MPLS network. After reading RFC 5905 I am not sure that PTP LSP, with its constraints and additional complexity, is required to transport NTPv4 messages over an MPLS network. And first paragraph in Section 3 Problem Statement of draft-ietf-tictoc-1588overmpls-04 explains motivation for the PTP as "There is a need to transport Timing messages over MPLS networks while supporting the Transparent Clock (TC), Boundary Clock (BC) and Ordinary Clock (OC) functionality in the LER and LSRs in the MPLS network." but says nothing of a kind about NTP. Regards, Greg
_______________________________________________ TICTOC mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tictoc
