[v6ops] draft-elkins-v6ops-ipv6-pdm-recommended-usage-00

joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com> Thu, 01 August 2013 13:46 UTC

Return-Path: <joelja@bogus.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16C7F21E8133 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Aug 2013 06:46:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.398
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.398 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.201, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pFxXrIWqZWCR for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Aug 2013 06:46:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nagasaki.bogus.com (nagasaki.bogus.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::81]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D71A021E81CB for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Thu, 1 Aug 2013 06:45:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dhcp-6518.meeting.ietf.org (dhcp-6518.meeting.ietf.org []) (authenticated bits=0) by nagasaki.bogus.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r71DjCg2002936 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 1 Aug 2013 13:45:14 GMT (envelope-from joelja@bogus.com)
Message-ID: <51FA6667.4010200@bogus.com>
Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2013 15:45:11 +0200
From: joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:23.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/23.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Nalini Elkins <nalini.elkins@insidethestack.com>, IPv6 Ops WG <v6ops@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (nagasaki.bogus.com []); Thu, 01 Aug 2013 13:45:14 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [v6ops] draft-elkins-v6ops-ipv6-pdm-recommended-usage-00
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: Thu, 01 Aug 2013 13:46:09 -0000

Since I ran into you in the hall and the dicussion turned to ntp...

I'll try and be succinct, and as a non-expert in the time field this
should be taken with a grain of salt.

The generic utility of a high-resultion time-stamp is imho dodgey
outside of situations where the clocks are deliberately syncronized and
traceable to a common standard whether the protocol used for this is ntp
or ieee 1588 (or since this is the ietf PTPV2) . While this is tractable
for devices in a single span of control, the agruement that ntp might be
suffcient to make this timstamp useful generically between two
aribitratry devices where this functionality may need to be enabled is
imho a hard one to assert.

It is a set of operational practice and discipline moreso than the
choice of technology that allows for a high-resolution timestamp to have
sufficient precision to be useful between hosts.