IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] Fw: New Version Notification for draft-elkins-6man-ipv6-pdm-dest-option-04.txt

joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com> Mon, 28 October 2013 17:07 UTC

Return-Path: <joelja@bogus.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E44E21E80BA; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 10:07:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.25
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.25 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.251, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7uORJfg7G7hd; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 10:07:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nagasaki.bogus.com (nagasaki.bogus.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::81]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D150111E8286; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 10:06:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 00698a-hsutim.corp.zynga.com ([199.48.105.4]) (authenticated bits=0) by nagasaki.bogus.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r9SH6oA9084644 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Mon, 28 Oct 2013 17:06:51 GMT (envelope-from joelja@bogus.com)
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_F0041254-84C3-481F-8877-236BC366790F"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha1"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.0 \(1816\))
From: joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>
In-Reply-To: <4FC37E442D05A748896589E468752CAA0CA8B261@PWN401EA160.ent.corp.bcbsm.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2013 10:06:44 -0700
Message-Id: <822EAF96-CFCF-4584-B590-08CAFE6AF260@bogus.com>
References: <20131017032024.5051.20799.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <1381980305.36254.YahooMailNeo@web2803.biz.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <5263C783.1080001@globis.net> <1382396300.22968.YahooMailNeo@web2801.biz.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <526616C4.40304@globis.net> <4FC37E442D05A748896589E468752CAA0CA88734@PWN401EA160.ent.corp.bcbsm.com> <52695E3A.9090406@globis.net> <4FC37E442D05A748896589E468752CAA0CA8A36F@PWN401EA160.ent.corp.bcbsm.com> <526AAC81.3050402@globis.net> <4FC37E442D05A748896589E468752CAA0CA8B1CD@PWN401EA160.ent.corp.bcbsm.com> <526E8FA3.70506@innovationslab.net> <4FC37E442D05A748896589E468752CAA0CA8B261@PWN401EA160.ent.corp.bcbsm.com>
To: "Ackermann, Michael" <MAckermann@bcbsm.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1816)
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (nagasaki.bogus.com [147.28.0.81]); Mon, 28 Oct 2013 17:06:52 +0000 (UTC)
Cc: Ray Hunter <v6ops@globis.net>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>, v6ops WG <v6ops@ietf.org>, "ippm@ietf.org" <ippm@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Fw: New Version Notification for draft-elkins-6man-ipv6-pdm-dest-option-04.txt
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/v6ops>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2013 17:07:09 -0000

On Oct 28, 2013, at 9:49 AM, Ackermann, Michael <MAckermann@bcbsm.com> wrote:

> Thank you Brian.
> 
> What you say matches my understanding and experiences
> 

Then you should revise your statement accordingly…

> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian Haberman [mailto:brian@innovationslab.net] 
> Sent: Monday, October 28, 2013 12:24 PM
> To: Ackermann, Michael; Ray Hunter
> Cc: v6ops WG; 6man WG; ippm@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [v6ops] Fw: New Version Notification for draft-elkins-6man-ipv6-pdm-dest-option-04.txt
> 
> Hi Michael.
> 
> On 10/28/13 12:13 PM, Ackermann, Michael wrote:
>> Hey Ray
>> 
>> It appears your experiences with Time Synch and Stratum levels are
>> different than mine.   In the older Telecom and Voice World Stratum
>> was a great indicator of clocking accuracy.   Still is as far as I
>> know.   This was always true with or without NTP in the picture. And
>> whenever we had two Stratum 0's or 1's, be they the same or different
>> masters, they WOULD be in synch.   We never had a situation that was
>> an exception to that, with or without NTP.
> 
> The NTP definition of stratum is different from that used in the telecommunications domain.  The primary feature of a NTP stratum 0 clock is the ability to generate accurate pulse per second signals, hence calling them reference clocks.  It should be noted that in NTP, stratum
> 0 clocks are *not* NTP servers, they are the source of time information to stratum 1 servers that serve time via NTP.
> 
> Regards,
> Brian
> 
> 
> 
> The information contained in this communication is highly confidential and is intended solely for the use of the individual(s) to whom this communication is directed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any viewing, copying, disclosure or distribution of this information is prohibited. Please notify the sender, by electronic mail or telephone, of any unintended receipt and delete the original message without making any copies.
> 
> Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan and Blue Care Network of Michigan are nonprofit corporations and independent licensees of the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association.
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email