>>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Maarten Wiltink" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> writes:
Maarten> "Luc Pardon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message Maarten> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] [...] >> What I want is not so much two copies of ntpd as a separation between >> client and server functionality. >> >> The client should keep my clock on track. The server should tell all my >> other systems what time it is. As I understand it, that is not the ntp model, that is the timed model. When peering, ntpd exchanges time packets with other ntpd processes on other machines. We can get close to what you want today - run ntpd on your peering/master machines, and sntp on your client/leaf machines. Maarten> Forget mentioning OpenNTP, folks here will crucify you for that Maarten> alone. OpenBSD's OpenNTP was, as I recall (and IMO), originally a malignantly broken SNTP implementation. The last time I checked, it was still effectively an SNTP implementation, even though it was advertised as an NTP implementation. I complain about what I consider to be "false advertising". I don't care beyond that. Maarten> Which is exactly why I want to express my moral support Maarten> (from a safe distance). This would be a TREMENDOUSLY good idea. Maarten> It's also not going to happen. NTP is never finished, it Maarten> seems. Never any time for redesigns like this. "Software isn't finished until the last user is dead". And I'd be happy to see ntpd redesigned to be better. I will actively help in the process, too. I believe Dave will also be interested, and I also belive that Dave will insist that the results of that effort be Robust; most of the time when I have seen Dave complain about somebody's idea it was because the idea was a good solution in a limited area, and behaved Badly under other conditions. Put another way, volunteers would be welcome. H _______________________________________________ questions mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ntp.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/questions
