-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 212
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Feat(eos_designs): Only enable PTP on certain uplinks #4009
Comments
Hi, I don't think we will implement this. If I understand your usecase correctly, you need to enable PTP on only one uplink per spine. Is it always the first one or are you distributing them? I would prefer to implement some option under the ptp settings on the node, to tell which uplink to use. We could even do some modulus on the node ID with the number of uplinks and decide, so you don't have to maintain the distribution? |
Hi, thanks for your answer. :) Yeah your understanding is correct. We use the eos_design role to define your media fabirc with an overlay network. For the overlay we do have connections from SpineA to LeafA and LeafB and from SpineB to LeafA and LeafB. The PTP implementation includes two grand master clocks (A and B). They are separatly connected to spineA and spineB. But then the "normal" l3ls ptp implementation distributes PTP to LeafA and LeafB from SpineA and vise versa from spineB. Thats what we like to avoid. So that PTP from grandmaster A is only distributed via spineA and leafA and PTP from grandmaster B is only distributed via spineB and leafB. So yeah an option within a list wich is corresponding to the list of the pulink_interfaces would be great oder the modulus idea of yours sound also nice :) Best regards Stefan |
From our best practice document I understood that the time domain should be contiguous, having a link between A and B sides on the spines only for PTP. Please check with your account team to make sure the design you are building is following the best practices. Meanwhile I will update the title and text of this issue to reflect the ask of controlling which uplinks to use for PTP. |
Hi Claus, sorry for the late reply. We are planning to implement a underlay network to do the media streaming and PTP. But we are also planning to do a overlay network for managing media devices. With this combination we are having PTP between A (Red) and B (Blue) leaf and spines, because we are implementing a L3LS architecture. But I will get in contact with the account team to get in touch regarding this topic. Best regards Stefan |
We heard from a other radio station, that they implemented a air gapped PTP design between A and B network. They have better performance regarding the switch over from grandmaster A to B and back. |
I have been asked to contribute to this discussion. |
This issue is stale because it has been open 90 days with no activity. The issue will be reviewed by a maintainer and may be closed |
Proposed Data Model:
This would enable ptp only on the uplinks described in |
Hi Sugetha, the solution you provided sounds great. Thank you for providing a solution :) Best regards Stefan |
Edit by @ClausHolbechArista:
Enhancement summary
Provide a mechanism to control which uplinks are enabled for PTP.
Could be either a list of uplink interfaces or maybe an algorithm like modulus on the node ID.
Original ask:
Enhancement summary
When defining uplink ports (uplink_switches) between spine and leafs in the Arista AVD role eos_designs, it would be desirable to assign a port profile to the ports from the ordered lists in order to specify whether PTP should be enabled or not via the port profile.
Which component of AVD is impacted
eos_designs
Use case example
The use case would be to define links where no ptp should be implemented. The reason for that is that we would like to separate PTP in a media fabric between A (red) and B (blue) spine and leaf architecture and would like to achieve that with loading port profiles. But we want to have a redundant connection from spine A to leaf a and b to be able to have a overlay network in the media fabric.
Describe the solution you would like
The solution would look like the following:
Describe alternatives you have considered
No response
Additional context
No response
Contributing Guide
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: