-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 62
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
Additional RF information options for EPBs #56
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
Please include the following EPBs options for time-slotted radios. Start of slot timestamp.
Timeslot size.
End of Frame Timestamp.
Absolute Slot number
|
I would also like to see standardized options for. |
Those seem like good options to me! Any thoughts @guyharris @packetfoo ? Otherwise I will add them when I can. |
I presume from the "monotonically increasing" and the 64-bit size that the slot number doesn't cycle around, i.e. it's not as if you have a fixed number of slots like the time slots in a TDM network. |
Right. This could be called "absolute slot number" instead so "slot number" in a "timeslot set" could be used for relative timeslots. |
Sounds good to me. |
It has become apparent that extrapolating the start of frame timestamp from the epb timestamp is not an accurate reference for computing relative times from the start of slot and end of frame timestamps. The timestamps for comparison should all reference the same monotonically increasing clock. |
This should probably be converted to a change to the extended Markdown version of the spec at pcapng/draft-tuexen-opsawg-pcapng.md, as that's now the source for the spec. See cabo/kramdown-rfc2629 for the extensions. |
(sorry i should have tested that on one of my own repos) |
@ryankurte please rebase. |
Following from #48, this PR is to add per-packet options for capture information to the EPB, alongside the per-interface options introduced in #51.
This PR is a work in progress and requires further discussion, opening now so there is a clear delineation between this and #51.
TODO:
Options:
The updated RFC can be viewed here
Please read the RFC or check out the diff for an up to date view of the changes