On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 12:41:17PM +0200, Dieter Sibold wrote: > > > > > >I also assume that to be able to get a very accurate results. But > > >if that's the case I think they're going about this the wrong way. > > >I think for most cases the overhead of the crypto is not going to > > >have an impact on the results because there is just way more > > >jitter on the network. For the cases this matters both sides > > >should take an additional timestamp when the packet was really sent, > > >and have a follow up packet that contains the correct time. > > > > This would be a very clean solution, but my impression was always that NTP > > did not offer follow-up type messages (as a reminder: for NTS, we try to > > not require modifications to the specification of the underlying time sync > > protocol). Am I wrong about his? > > > This is correct. NTP as specified in RFC 5905 does not have the concept of a > follow up message, like for example PTP. I assume
I can't believe that there isn't a draft for this yet. At least David Mills has been talking about this years ago. As far as I know, at least Linux and FreeBSD have support for hardware timestamping of the packets, but it depends on the hardware and driver support. Kurt _______________________________________________ TICTOC mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tictoc
