David Woolley wrote: > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > "Wolfgang S. Rupprech" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> (ref http://www.pool.ntp.org/join.html) That comes out to ~5GByte per >> month. I'm not sure my ISP will be that happy with me if I committed >> to that high an added load. I would have much fewer worries if the > > For comparison, home users of ADSL on the main UK wholesale supplier > are contended at a level that means that a monthly fair share of bandwidth > is about 12GB, so 5GB is a significant amount of bandwidth. >
All of this points to the fact that the NTP infrastructure needs work. DNS is a well distributed infrastructure while NTP is not. We are depending on just a few (relatively) NTP servers to provide time. Maybe the real solution is to provide NTP service similar to DNS service. >> The fastest way to break people of the habit of wiring in IP addresses >> would be to only allow dynamic hosts into pools. Unless they use the >> hostname as they are instructed to, they won't get any time service >> after a while. > > I think home users should be discouraged from being in the pools, because, > as well as easily using up a large part of their share of the access network > bandwidth, they are going to be particularly prone to variable delays due > to contention in the access network. > > ADSL in the UK (and I think more generally) is actually carried by an > ATM packet switched network to the local exchange. ADSL peak rates > far exceed an equal share of the bandwidth of the ATM network provided. Which is yet another reason not to put something like this in the pool. Danny _______________________________________________ questions mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ntp.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/questions
