Hi Mark, Jared, Do you really think enabling NTP service on routers can burdening them. I mean in hierarchical way where RR and directly connected with ntp sources and then all PEs use RR as ntp master and CEs further down use PEs as NTP master?
Jared, Quick question, why you think anycast IP on NTP servers is better then configuring multiple individual servers on devices. One advantage of anycast i can think is since (i believe) device choose ntp that has better stratum and if its same it choose ntp who respond first if multiple ntp servers are configured so if anycast ip is used, device will reach only to closest device. I try to read about ntp with anycast ip and found a doc that talk about some risk that i couldn't understand. below is the snippet and source. can you please comment on this please? "NTP will also normally work with Anycast. A small risk with NTP is that it generally requires at least two packets from both server and client to get a proper synchronization. If the server fails after the first packet, it will take an extra packet to synchronize with the next available NTP server. The Simple Network Time Protocol (SNTP) does not have this problem." http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.116.6367&rep=rep1&type=pdf page-8 Regards Regards On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 10:31 AM, Mark Tinka <mark.ti...@seacom.mu> wrote: > On Tuesday, November 19, 2013 02:02:43 PM Jared Mauch wrote: > > > We have servers in each location with NTP synced to local > > stratum 1 or 2 clocks. Customers are given an anycast ip > > that points to these for time sources. We configure > > routers to point at these local sources. > > Agree - better to put that on servers running than burdening > routers with NTP functionality in addition to other daily > tasks. > > Mark. > _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/