Dave Hart wrote: > On Feb 15, 4:13 pm, ma...@ntp.org (Danny Mayer) wrote: >> Dave Hart wrote: >>> On Feb 13, 2:50 am, ma...@ntp.org (Danny Mayer) wrote: >>>> I've had only my list of things to do to use only one refid per system >>>> rather than based on the IP based being used. >>> This certainly seems like a winning idea in terms of loop detection. >>> If you do something like this, it would be nice if without extra >>> configuration RFC1918 addresses would tend to not be used as refids >>> (like unless the only unicast IPv4 address available is RFC1918. >> I fail to see what RFC1918 addresses have to do with it. There's always >> likely to be a mixture of public/private addresses in an ntp >> configuration and I see no point in preferring one over the other. > > RFC1918 addresses are of course not globally unique, so are > particularly ill-suited to a reference ID used for loop detection. > >> In >> addition this ignores the IPv6 addresses and it is intended to tackle >> that issue as well. It would be better if these were just a generated >> 32-bit random number created at startup which is kept for the lifetime >> of the server. > > Why play roulette if you have a globally unique IPv4 address to use as > a refid? Since IPv6 addresses are hashed down to 32 bits if used as a > refid, again, IPv4 global addresses if available are better unique > identifiers. >
Because I want to get away from the notion that these are meant to be IP addresses. In addition in an IPv6-only environment that wouldn't work either. Why create work when it's unnecessary just to find a valid IP address? In addition with anycast addresses are not globally unique. The chances that you will create a non-unique random number within a network is extremely low. Danny > Cheers, > Dave hart _______________________________________________ questions mailing list questions@lists.ntp.org https://lists.ntp.org/mailman/listinfo/questions