On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 03:08:53AM -0700, Hal Murray wrote: > > [email protected] said: > > As long as we cannot get such simple measures correctly implemented, forget > > about more complicated things. Sure you could add a lookup feature, but > > nobody is going to use it. > > Right. But we have to at lease set a good example. > > I wonder what would have happened to the recent BCP if we had thought of this > issue in time.
It's not very clear to me what is being proposed or different here. I think the current behaviour of most clients is good enough. If they don't receive a response for several polling intervals, or the responses are not "synchronized", they will resolve the name again and switch to another server if the name resolves to a different address. So, a server removed from the pool just needs to stop responding. I've removed a server from the pool couple months ago. Not responding got rid of most clients quickly. After few weeks 90% of the remaining clients were ntpd clients. I think they were pre-4.2.8 versions and/or not configured with the "pool" directive, so they would not switch to another server until they were restarted. ntpd as a client doesn't care about KoD DENY, but it honors KoD RATE with the poll value, so at least it's possible to increase their polling intervals. E.g. setting "discard average 20" on the server would reduce traffic from ntpd clients by about a factor of 1000. If something new needs to be implemented, and I'm not convinced it is, I think it should be in NTP, not DNS, or HTTP. -- Miroslav Lichvar _______________________________________________ pool mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/pool
