Martin Burnicki wrote: > Garrett, > > Garrett Wollman wrote: >> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, >> Martin Burnicki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> 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. >> At least some operating systems (don't know about Linux) allow this to >> be controlled using a control message. For example, from the FreeBSD >> 6.3 ip(4) manual page: >> >> The source address to be used for outgoing UDP datagrams on a socket >> that is not bound to a specific IP address can be specified as >> ancillary data >> with a type code of IP_SENDSRCADDR. The msg_control field in the >> msghdr structure should point to a buffer that contains a cmsghdr >> structure fol- >> lowed by the IP address. The cmsghdr fields should have the >> following values: >> >> cmsg_len = sizeof(struct in_addr) >> cmsg_level = IPPROTO_IP >> cmsg_type = IP_SENDSRCADDR >> >> For convenience, IP_SENDSRCADDR is defined to have the same value as >> IP_RECVDSTADDR, so the IP_RECVDSTADDR control message from recvmsg(2) >> can be used directly as a control message for sendmsg(2). >> >> The IPV6_PKTINFO message is used for analogous functions in IPv6. >> >> -GAWollman > > That's interesting. > > However, I'm neither familiar with those techniques, nor do I know whether > such an approach would be useful for ntpd, especially since ntpd is > targeted for multiple platforms (Frank? Danny?) > > > Martin
See BIND9 which uses it where possible. The requirements are different on NTP but there are different issues that need to be addressed. Danny _______________________________________________ questions mailing list questions@lists.ntp.org https://lists.ntp.org/mailman/listinfo/questions
