Martin wrote: > Those "special" 127.127.x.y addresses are somewhat sorted out when parsing > the configuration options and treated in a special way. I'm not sure it > would work, and I'm not even sure if it would be expected to work. Dave > Mills, Dave Hart, and Danny, what's your opinion on using IPv6-style > addresses to specify refclocks?
I'd vote against this because I don't see the value in it. I'm more inclined to create a new config keyword, "refclock", and probably have it take x.y as its primary argument. Then, for backward compatibility, we'd map "server 127.127.x.y ..." to "refclock x.y ...". But I'd also want to look much harder at this, and figure out what other interactions there might be. I'm also still interested in looking in to a "refclock definition language", and converting *all* of our refclock .c files to this new format. I think it would be a useful step forward, and it would help us get rid of the hardcoded and centrally-managed "refclock types" currently hardwired in include/ntp.h . H _______________________________________________ questions mailing list questions@lists.ntp.org http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/questions
