On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 11:04:48AM +0000, Joe Holden wrote: > On 24/02/2014 10:56, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > > In message <530b2500.5030...@rewt.org.uk>, Joe Holden writes: > > > >> Can I also suggest that ntp.org shouldn't be in the base either? :P > > > > I absolutely agree, but the replacement is less clear in that case. > > > > > I'd suggest openntpd as a candidate as it would require less work than > dntpd since that has some kernel changes. > > At ~400K it is pretty lightweight and doesn't listen at all by default, > suitable as a default ntpd that just maintains time - one can always > install ntp.org from ports should they need more features (such as > access control and monlist, etc)
openntpd not able to authenticate the sources it is using and thus lack a big ntp feature as a client. regards, Bapt
pgpvHtzhKeN_u.pgp
Description: PGP signature
