Re: [ntp:questions] Windows built-in SNTP/NTP clients
Ryan, So far as I am concerned, the mode-6 CM protocol remains as in rfc1305, althougth not in the current NTPv4 draft. The WG intent is to publish that in a separate draft. There was never any intent to detail the various billboards and eye candy in the specification, only the status words and read/write commands. These depend on the particular implementation; in the reference implementation these details are in the ntpq and decode documentation pages. They are by design not in the specification, as they change in minor ways as the algorithms evolve and new features are added. Dave Ryan Malayter wrote: On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 12:17 PM, David L. Mills [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ryan, That was 16 years ago It is still the only published standard for implementers to use. and you know exactly what I meant. If you are going to implement a mode-6 control and monitoring protocol, then you must conform to the specification. Period. Any other interpretation is stupid. It seems that any definition of the content of mode 6 packets has been removed from draft-ietf-ntp-ntpv4-proto-10. I don't know what to make of that, and I'm sure other implementers would be confused about it as well. ___ questions mailing list questions@lists.ntp.org https://lists.ntp.org/mailman/listinfo/questions
Re: [ntp:questions] Windows built-in SNTP/NTP clients
On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 11:56 AM, David L. Mills [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Neither does Windows implement the mode-6 protocol nor does it conform to the basic protocol. Microsoft claims otherwise: The Windows Time service integrates NTP version 3 with algorithmic enhancements from NTP version 4 from http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc773013.aspx There are plenty of references to RFC 1305 on those pages. The only strange behavior I've observed from Windows Time Service 2003 is the use of symmetric-active associations as a default. However, that is not a non-compliance problem, as client-mode associations are easily configured explicitly. It is just a stupid default. Now the lack of support for broadcast and multicast modes may be grounds for calling the implementation, but the RFC is a bit unclear as to whether all modes are required. The use of the standard RFC 221 As the author of rfc1305 I say you misquote me. The mode-6 control and monitoring protocol is an integral component of the specification; the mode-7 protocol is intended as propietary. In any case the mode-6 protocol was defined and implmented well before SNMP. From RFC 1305 Appendix B, paragraph 1: These messages are intended for use only in systems where no other management facilities are available or appropriate, such as in dedicated-function bus peripherals. Support for these messages is not required in order to conform to this specification. Now David, you may have *meant* something else, but what you wrote into RFC 1305 seems pretty clear. The first sentence quoted above clearly indicates that mode 6 packets are *not* the preffered method for management and monitoring of NTP systems. Any NTP implementer - even Microsoft - cannot be taken to task accountable for following the recommendations of RFC 1305! -- RPM ___ questions mailing list questions@lists.ntp.org https://lists.ntp.org/mailman/listinfo/questions
Re: [ntp:questions] Windows built-in SNTP/NTP clients
Sorry, I accidentally hit send too soon during the middle of an edit. Damn you Gmail, and your odd keyboard shortcuts! My second paragraph should have read: Now the lack of support for broadcast and multicast modes may be grounds for calling the implementation non-compliant, but the RFC is a bit unclear as to whether all modes of operation are required. The use of the standard RFC 2119 language (MUST, SHOULD, MAY, MUST NOT, etc.) was obviously not possible as RFC 1305 pre-dates that RFC by many years. Does the NTPv4 draft remedy this and use RFC 2119-style language? Regards, -- RPM ___ questions mailing list questions@lists.ntp.org https://lists.ntp.org/mailman/listinfo/questions
Re: [ntp:questions] Windows built-in SNTP/NTP clients
David J Taylor wrote: In addition to Ryan's information, you can run the official NTP on Windows NT, 2000, XP and Vista, although it is not the built-in NTP: http://www.meinberg.de/english/sw/ntp.htm I'm a big proponent of that package and have it on everything I maintain (which is few, thankfully!) ... but this is a W2k3 server maintained by another group (a MS-centric group) and I'd rather educate them gently instead of just saying here's a nickel kid, go buy yourself a *real* time server ... Even if I think that's the best course of action!:-) -- Peter Laws / N5UWY National Weather Center / Network Operations Center University of Oklahoma Information Technology [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Feedback? Contact my director, Craig Cochell, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thank you! ___ questions mailing list questions@lists.ntp.org https://lists.ntp.org/mailman/listinfo/questions
Re: [ntp:questions] Windows built-in SNTP/NTP clients
Ryan, That was 16 years ago and you know exactly what I meant. If you are going to implement a mode-6 control and monitoring protocol, then you must conform to the specification. Period. Any other interpretation is stupid. Dave Ryan Malayter wrote: On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 11:56 AM, David L. Mills [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Neither does Windows implement the mode-6 protocol nor does it conform to the basic protocol. Microsoft claims otherwise: The Windows Time service integrates NTP version 3 with algorithmic enhancements from NTP version 4 from http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc773013.aspx There are plenty of references to RFC 1305 on those pages. The only strange behavior I've observed from Windows Time Service 2003 is the use of symmetric-active associations as a default. However, that is not a non-compliance problem, as client-mode associations are easily configured explicitly. It is just a stupid default. Now the lack of support for broadcast and multicast modes may be grounds for calling the implementation, but the RFC is a bit unclear as to whether all modes are required. The use of the standard RFC 221 As the author of rfc1305 I say you misquote me. The mode-6 control and monitoring protocol is an integral component of the specification; the mode-7 protocol is intended as propietary. In any case the mode-6 protocol was defined and implmented well before SNMP. From RFC 1305 Appendix B, paragraph 1: These messages are intended for use only in systems where no other management facilities are available or appropriate, such as in dedicated-function bus peripherals. Support for these messages is not required in order to conform to this specification. Now David, you may have *meant* something else, but what you wrote into RFC 1305 seems pretty clear. The first sentence quoted above clearly indicates that mode 6 packets are *not* the preffered method for management and monitoring of NTP systems. Any NTP implementer - even Microsoft - cannot be taken to task accountable for following the recommendations of RFC 1305! ___ questions mailing list questions@lists.ntp.org https://lists.ntp.org/mailman/listinfo/questions
Re: [ntp:questions] Windows built-in SNTP/NTP clients
On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 12:17 PM, David L. Mills [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ryan, That was 16 years ago It is still the only published standard for implementers to use. and you know exactly what I meant. If you are going to implement a mode-6 control and monitoring protocol, then you must conform to the specification. Period. Any other interpretation is stupid. It seems that any definition of the content of mode 6 packets has been removed from draft-ietf-ntp-ntpv4-proto-10. I don't know what to make of that, and I'm sure other implementers would be confused about it as well. -- RPM ___ questions mailing list questions@lists.ntp.org https://lists.ntp.org/mailman/listinfo/questions
Re: [ntp:questions] Windows built-in SNTP/NTP clients
Folks, I hope to have something to say about the new SNTP code within the next few weeks' time. -- Harlan Stenn [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://ntpforum.isc.org - be a member! ___ questions mailing list questions@lists.ntp.org https://lists.ntp.org/mailman/listinfo/questions
Re: [ntp:questions] Windows built-in SNTP/NTP clients
Ryan Malayter wrote: On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 2:21 AM, David J Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I just checked Vista (Home Premium) and the built-in NTP does not respond to NTPQ requests. Does the one in Windows 2003 or 2008? Can any implementation which fails to respond to NTPQ commands be called decent? NTP mode 6 packets are an OPTIONAL part of the NTP specification in RFC-1305, and RFC-1305 even goes so far as to suggest that mode 6 packets be used only when other management and monitoring tools are unavailable. Microsoft provides other management tools (w32tm, group policy, event viewer, etc.), although they are barely sufficient. As far as I know, the reference implementation and its derivatives are the *only* implementations supported by ntpq. Some of its functions are even version-specific and not mentioned in any RFC, right? So asking you question the other way is just as valid: Can any implementation which fails to respond to w32tm commands be called decent? Sounds silly. Thanks for your input, Ryan. I'm really thinking of the management environment, where you have a single monitor system checking on a host of different clients. I guess the correct approach there would be if all the clients responded to SNMP requests, rather than using a proprietary protocol. For the moment, though, I would want an NTP client which could be monitored by NTPQ (although only the offset is of routine interest to me). Cheers, David ___ questions mailing list questions@lists.ntp.org https://lists.ntp.org/mailman/listinfo/questions
Re: [ntp:questions] Windows built-in SNTP/NTP clients
David J Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] [...] I guess the correct approach there would be if all the clients responded to SNMP requests, rather than using a proprietary protocol. ... It's stuck in my head that NTP has Assigned Numbers (MIBs? I'm not up to speed on SNMP) already, and SNMP capability could be added without too much trouble. I'm tying to see the catch - would this be for monitoring purposes only? There are many people who want to reconfigure on the fly; on the other hand there are probably even more people who only want to watch. And it might make sense for some high-end appliance manufacturer to develop, even. Groetjes, Maarten Wiltink ___ questions mailing list questions@lists.ntp.org https://lists.ntp.org/mailman/listinfo/questions
Re: [ntp:questions] Windows built-in SNTP/NTP clients
David, Neither does Windows implement the mode-6 protocol nor does it conform to the basic protocol. See the reference implementation documentation about Windows issues. Also see the alternative workaround in ntp_proto.c. As the author of rfc1305 I say you misquote me. The mode-6 control and monitoring protocol is an integral component of the specification; the mode-7 protocol is intended as propietary. In any case the mode-6 protocol was defined and implmented well before SNMP. An NTP MIB has been implemented by some manufacturers and another proposed by the NTP working group, but neither is supported by the reference implementation. Either MIB might be appropriate for management purposes, but for complete monitoring and performance evalutation the limitations of current SNMP clients make the mode-6 protocol necessary. Dave David J Taylor wrote: Ryan Malayter wrote: On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 2:21 AM, David J Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I just checked Vista (Home Premium) and the built-in NTP does not respond to NTPQ requests. Does the one in Windows 2003 or 2008? Can any implementation which fails to respond to NTPQ commands be called decent? NTP mode 6 packets are an OPTIONAL part of the NTP specification in RFC-1305, and RFC-1305 even goes so far as to suggest that mode 6 packets be used only when other management and monitoring tools are unavailable. Microsoft provides other management tools (w32tm, group policy, event viewer, etc.), although they are barely sufficient. As far as I know, the reference implementation and its derivatives are the *only* implementations supported by ntpq. Some of its functions are even version-specific and not mentioned in any RFC, right? So asking you question the other way is just as valid: Can any implementation which fails to respond to w32tm commands be called decent? Sounds silly. Thanks for your input, Ryan. I'm really thinking of the management environment, where you have a single monitor system checking on a host of different clients. I guess the correct approach there would be if all the clients responded to SNMP requests, rather than using a proprietary protocol. For the moment, though, I would want an NTP client which could be monitored by NTPQ (although only the offset is of routine interest to me). Cheers, David ___ questions mailing list questions@lists.ntp.org https://lists.ntp.org/mailman/listinfo/questions
Re: [ntp:questions] Windows built-in SNTP/NTP clients
David L. Mills wrote: David, Neither does Windows implement the mode-6 protocol nor does it conform to the basic protocol. See the reference implementation documentation about Windows issues. Also see the alternative workaround in ntp_proto.c. As the author of rfc1305 I say you misquote me. The mode-6 control and monitoring protocol is an integral component of the specification; the mode-7 protocol is intended as propietary. In any case the mode-6 protocol was defined and implmented well before SNMP. An NTP MIB has been implemented by some manufacturers and another proposed by the NTP working group, but neither is supported by the reference implementation. Either MIB might be appropriate for management purposes, but for complete monitoring and performance evalutation the limitations of current SNMP clients make the mode-6 protocol necessary. Dave Dave, It was Ryan and not I who wrote about mode-6 - I protest my innocence! I continue to recommend the reference implementation for Windows use, and I am grateful to those who continue to make a compiled version available. It would be good to see even a limited SNMP capability included in NTP - for monitoring only, not for control. Offset alone would be enough for me, although the ability to reproduce the ntpq -p display would be great. Cheers, David ___ questions mailing list questions@lists.ntp.org https://lists.ntp.org/mailman/listinfo/questions
Re: [ntp:questions] Windows built-in SNTP/NTP clients
Ryan Malayter wrote: On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 10:15 AM, Peter Laws [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Can someone post a list or point me to one, that shows which versions of MS-Windows have decent NTP clients? I know that NT/2K/XP does not but what about W2k3, '2k8, etc? http://support.ntp.org/bin/view/Support/WindowsTimeService and these from my blog: http://blog.malayter.com/2006/05/windows-2003-sp1-has-real-ntp-service.html http://blog.malayter.com/2008/03/configuring-windows-time-service.html I just checked Vista (Home Premium) and the built-in NTP does not respond to NTPQ requests. Does the one in Windows 2003 or 2008? Can any implementation which fails to respond to NTPQ commands be called decent? Thanks, David ___ questions mailing list questions@lists.ntp.org https://lists.ntp.org/mailman/listinfo/questions
Re: [ntp:questions] Windows built-in SNTP/NTP clients
Peter Laws wrote: Can someone post a list or point me to one, that shows which versions of MS-Windows have decent NTP clients? I know that NT/2K/XP does not but what about W2k3, '2k8, etc? None have decent ones. W2k3 SP2 has a fair one, and some people say this extends back to the unservice-packed version. Presumably later versions have, at least, the same software. I'm not aware of any built-in versions interpolating clock ticks and I'm not aware of any of them supporting any of the management interfaces, but I've not had sufficient hands on access to say these with absolute certainty. I believe that all of them require explicit configuration before they will make proper client requests. ___ questions mailing list questions@lists.ntp.org https://lists.ntp.org/mailman/listinfo/questions
Re: [ntp:questions] Windows built-in SNTP/NTP clients
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 2:21 AM, David J Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I just checked Vista (Home Premium) and the built-in NTP does not respond to NTPQ requests. Does the one in Windows 2003 or 2008? Can any implementation which fails to respond to NTPQ commands be called decent? NTP mode 6 packets are an OPTIONAL part of the NTP specification in RFC-1305, and RFC-1305 even goes so far as to suggest that mode 6 packets be used only when other management and monitoring tools are unavailable. Microsoft provides other management tools (w32tm, group policy, event viewer, etc.), although they are barely sufficient. As far as I know, the reference implementation and its derivatives are the *only* implementations supported by ntpq. Some of its functions are even version-specific and not mentioned in any RFC, right? So asking you question the other way is just as valid: Can any implementation which fails to respond to w32tm commands be called decent? Sounds silly. -- RPM ___ questions mailing list questions@lists.ntp.org https://lists.ntp.org/mailman/listinfo/questions
[ntp:questions] Windows built-in SNTP/NTP clients
Can someone post a list or point me to one, that shows which versions of MS-Windows have decent NTP clients? I know that NT/2K/XP does not but what about W2k3, '2k8, etc? -- Peter Laws / N5UWY National Weather Center / Network Operations Center University of Oklahoma Information Technology [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Feedback? Contact my director, Craig Cochell, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thank you! ___ questions mailing list questions@lists.ntp.org https://lists.ntp.org/mailman/listinfo/questions
Re: [ntp:questions] Windows built-in SNTP/NTP clients
On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 10:15 AM, Peter Laws [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Can someone post a list or point me to one, that shows which versions of MS-Windows have decent NTP clients? I know that NT/2K/XP does not but what about W2k3, '2k8, etc? http://support.ntp.org/bin/view/Support/WindowsTimeService and these from my blog: http://blog.malayter.com/2006/05/windows-2003-sp1-has-real-ntp-service.html http://blog.malayter.com/2008/03/configuring-windows-time-service.html -- RPM ___ questions mailing list questions@lists.ntp.org https://lists.ntp.org/mailman/listinfo/questions
