netdev - Re: [E1000-devel] [PATCH] fixing hw timestamping in igb

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 9 Feb 2011 09:24:42 +0100
From:	Anders Berggren <anders@...on.se>
To:	"Ronciak, John" <john.ronciak@...el.com>
Cc:	"Kirsher, Jeffrey T" <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>,
	e1000-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [E1000-devel] [PATCH] fixing hw timestamping in igb

On Feb 8, 2011, at 5:27 PM, Ronciak, John wrote:

> The question of IPv6 support for TX timestamping is still under discussion.  We are trying to understand the use case for it as well as how it would be used.  We have had no customers asking for this type of support (at least not yet).  If there is kernel work going on regarding it then maybe this needs to be looked at closer. Other than being a science project, what is your use case for the TX timestamping in IPv6?

We're developing a "hardware/kernel timestamp ping" for Linux in C. It's part of a complete SLA platform (appliance based on Debian with XMLRPC APIs). It's both a science project (Chalmers University, Gothenburg) and a commercial project (Tele2).

Commercial SLA appliances from Cisco and Juniper typically have a accuracy of XXX microseconds. Our hardware ping, using Intel 82580 NICs, have an accuracy of 8 nanoseconds. That is VERY good.

The reason for supporting IPv6 is, well, because it's the future ;) --
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html