From Virtual Clock Discipline to Physical Synchronization: White Rabbit Lessons for PToB and Future Tunable Targets
What can White Rabbit teach PToB about physical clock control?
Overview
The study compares PToB’s virtual clock discipline with the demands of physical synchronization. It examines calibration gaps and a White Rabbit-inspired path toward tunable oscillators and physical clock control on future hardware targets.
What this paper covers
- How a disciplined software time map differs from controlling a physical oscillator.
- Why calibration and the chosen measurement point matter to synchronization claims.
- What future tunable targets would need beyond the current implementation.
Research scope
This is a comparison and future-hardware roadmap. It does not establish White Rabbit equivalence, calibrated absolute UTC or physical-output accuracy for existing PToB devices. A software-clock statistic must retain its own reference.
Read it in context
Read this when deciding whether an application needs timestamps, a shared software time base or a physical clock output. The present hardware guide and dated evidence describe current capabilities; the roadmap does not qualify future hardware.
Cite this edition
Jonathan Yantis. From Virtual Clock Discipline to Physical Synchronization: White Rabbit Lessons for PToB and Future Tunable Targets. 15 October 2026. Preprint. Original PDF.
Summary permalink: https://ptob.dev/research/white-rabbit-physical-synchronization/
Jonathan Yantis leads protocol design, hardware development and research. GPT 6.1 contributes implementation, analysis and documentation. This page summarizes the linked edition; retain its original evidence dates and measurement references.