Ronan Flood wrote: > "Richard B. Gilbert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >>Is "symmetric passive" different from just saying, in ntp.conf: >>"server sunblok iburst"? For the record, that works without problems too! > > > "server xxx" establishes you as a client, "peer xxx" tries to establish > you as a peer. If ntp.conf on box A has "peer B" and ntp.conf on box B > has "peer A", that is symmetric-active: each actively requests to peer > with the other. If box A has "peer B" but box B has no reference to A, > then B can either treat A as a client (usual behaviour), or in the right > (or wrong!) circumstances can accept A as an unconfigured peer, and that > is symmetric-passive. That seems to be what's happening with the original > poster's setup, with all those extras listed in ntpq -p. Generally it is > not desirable ... >
Some of those lines in the ntpq -p banner were stratum two and could have been peers. The rest were stratum three so I don't see how they could have been peers; don't peers have be of equal strata? _______________________________________________ questions mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ntp.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/questions
