Subject: Re: [TICTOC] Enterprise profile comments

From: Douglas Arnold <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2013 21:24:12 -0700

Hello Tal,

This is an important point. I believe that the Enterprise IT world will
want to use multipath PTP when implementations become available.
 Unfortunately I believe that it will be a few years before COTS PTP
equipment has this feature.  The exact form of MPPTP is yet to be defined
in the 1588 revision which just started and I expect that most of the
vendors will wait until at least the 1588 committee is in agreement about
how MPPTP will operate in particular mappings.  At that time I would expect
to revise the Enterprise Profile.  The short version of this answer is that
I don't want to include MPPTP until I am sure how the 1588 committee is
going to treat it.

In IEEE 1588-2008 Unicast negotiation is used only for master clock message
capacity management.   This is, so far, not wanted by the network
architects in the finance industry, whose needs we are trying to meet.

Here I am only speaking my personal opinion.  I have not discussed this
with Heiko yet.

Doug

On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 6:13 AM, Tal Mizrahi <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Hi Heiko, Doug,****
>
> ** **
>
> Thanks for putting this draft together. I believe it can be very useful to
> the industry.****
>
> ** **
>
> After going over the updated draft I have a single comment:****
>
> Please consider allowing unicast negotiation. The reason I am raising this
> is that multi-path PTP (draft-shpiner-multi-path-synchronization) would
> require Sync messages to be sent as unicast, and hence require unicast
> negotiation. I believe MPPTP can be useful in the context of this profile,
> allowing both redundancy and higher accuracy in some scenarios. Will
> appreciate if you can give this some thought.****
>
> ** **
>
> Thanks,****
>
> Tal.****
>
> ** **
>