Brian Inglis writes: > On 2014-07-07 10:00, John Hasler wrote: > > Jason writes: > >> The realization is that many clients don't run the standard NTP > >> distribution, but rather some old hacked down / self-coded minimal NTP > >> / SNTP version to run on embedded hardware. Likewise many of the > >> routers don't even use NTPD code with a constantly running daemon, but > >> rather more along the lines of ntpdate code that cron triggers at > >> regular intervals. > > > > Would it be useful to offer an "official" minimal implementation > > intended for embedded systems so that these people won't feel the need > > to code their own? Maybe add minimal NTP support to Busybox? > > AIUI an updated v4 sntp client will be released to replace ntpdate. > How about specifying the sntp core as an RFC for an embedded NTP client?
There are two obvious ways to go for an embedded client. One way would be to use the sntp code as the base. The other would be to either use the current NTP codebase and use the configure options to disable all the refclocks and anything else you didn't want, or wait until we're done with the post-4.2.8 rewrite. For post-4.2.8, we're looking at having a "client core" with any refclock code being handled a separate process. H _______________________________________________ questions mailing list questions@lists.ntp.org http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/questions
