On Mar 1, 2014, at 9:08 AM, Rob Janssen <[email protected]> wrote: > I looked that up in the RFC before I wrote it. > > Stratum (stratum): 8-bit integer representing the stratum, with > values defined in Figure 11. > > +--------+-----------------------------------------------------+ > | Value | Meaning | > +--------+-----------------------------------------------------+ > | 0 | unspecified or invalid | > | 1 | primary server (e.g., equipped with a GPS receiver) | > | 2-15 | secondary server (via NTP) | > | 16 | unsynchronized | > | 17-255 | reserved | > +--------+——————————————————————————+
The SNTP RFC - http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4330 - has a different table. It doesn’t mention any significance with regards to the reported accuracy of the service. >>> but it should not look at the actual time returned. >> For the monitoring graph, that is no problem. Time graph and inclusion in >> the pool >> are different things (though related of course). >> > I would say for plotting purposes it should be treated the same as "no > response at all". I’d take patches making the monitoring do that with the leap second=3 indicator, but not with the stratum. Ask _______________________________________________ pool mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/pool
