On Wed, 2008-12-03 at 09:46 -0500, Steve Kostecke wrote: > Calvin Webster said: > > >On Wed, 2008-12-03 at 02:25 +0000, Steve Kostecke wrote: > >> On 2008-12-03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >> > That still doesn't make sense to me. A peer is objecting to his peer > >> > using a fellow peer as a candidate? Why then does this behavior only > >> > present itself on the version 4.2.4 peer and none of the others? > >> > >> The difference between 4.2.4 and 4.2.0 is greater than one might be led > >> to believe. > > > >So this is *not* a normal function of peer relationships but an anomaly > >caused by mixing different versions of NTP, right? > > No. > > v4.2.4 is properly detecting (and rejecting) a peer loop. v4.2.0 is not. > > The NTP version numbers are not the major.minor.point that most people > expect. Rather they are protocol_version.major.minor with an added 'pN' > for point releases. > > So the difference between 4.2.4 and 4.2.0 is more than a couple of point > releases. It is, in fact, 2 entire development cycles.
Okay, I understand your version/release convention now. However, I guess I'm a little thick-headed on the "peer loop" issue. Please explain what a "peer loop" is or point me to the doc page that explains it. I don't see the disadvantage of having common peers. So, the new behavior is to select no candidates if they have common peers? This would seem counter-intuitive from a reliability/redundancy standpoint. What will this ver 4.2.4 server do when it can no longer reach the master server? My guess is that it will either stop serving time or die since it has no other reference (local undisciplined clocks not configured). If true, this is an undesirable condition, and seems especially wasteful when there are other time sources available even if they may not be as precise as the master. I'm sure I'm misunderstanding something here. Thanks for being patient with me. _______________________________________________ questions mailing list questions@lists.ntp.org https://lists.ntp.org/mailman/listinfo/questions