Uwe Klein wrote: > Martin Burnicki wrote: >> Agreed. However, you can at least configure the dynamic interface scan >> interval using the -U parameter, so you can decide if you prefer short >> response times or a longer response time with maybe decreased power >> requirements. > push a trigger for this into ntpdc?
I think that would be an ugly workaround. The proper solution would be to use the mechanisms which are available for such purposes. [...] > A question: > what would happen if one throws out binding to select interfaces and > instead pushes this out to the firewall/ip-tables infrastructure? I don't know whether this would be possible, and if it would make sense. AFAIK ntpd has to manage the binding to interfaces at least if autokey is enabled since the signature hash also includes the IP address of the interface via which a packet is sent. Martin -- Martin Burnicki Meinberg Funkuhren Bad Pyrmont Germany _______________________________________________ questions mailing list questions@lists.ntp.org https://lists.ntp.org/mailman/listinfo/questions
