... | ... | @@ -474,12 +474,18 @@ not acceptable by the most stringent AVBg2 requirements), however: |
|
|
The idea of Time Aware Shaper (both at end stations and WR switches) is
|
|
|
worth considering for WR, especially to meet GSI's requirements.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Some points (additional requirements) that would need to be considered
|
|
|
to use AVBg2 instead of WR:
|
|
|
|
|
|
- syncE + asymmetry so that sub-nanosecond synchronization could be
|
|
|
achieved
|
|
|
- "broadcast stream" - it is not clear whether AVBg2 could handle a
|
|
|
stream to most of the end stations in the network (~2000) and
|
|
|
provide (seamless) redundancy
|
|
|
In order to align WR and AVBg2 the following would be needed
|
|
|
|
|
|
- requirements to be added to AVB:
|
|
|
- syncE + WR asymmetry evaluation mechanism - so that
|
|
|
sub-nanosecond synchronization could be achieved
|
|
|
- broadcast stream handling for large scale networks (min 2000 end
|
|
|
stations)
|
|
|
- bridge number-efficient seamless redundancy or ultra-fast
|
|
|
network reconfiguration (\< few microseconds) so the FEC layer
|
|
|
can be used on top
|
|
|
- changes to WR:
|
|
|
- support of peer-delay mechanism in WRPTP
|
|
|
- implementation of dynamic stream reservation (very heavy
|
|
|
implementation-wise)
|
|
|
|