"Danny Mayer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Maarten Wiltink wrote:
>> For a service like NTP, making repeated UDP (connectionless) requests
>> to the same host, a varying IP address on the server will never do.
>
> Maarten, NTP doesn't currently do that. It asks onc
>>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Garrett Wollman) writes:
Garrett> Which is deeply and profoundly broken, but your choice, I suppose.
Dave's choice.
I am working on a way to automate the production of some of the
documentation in a variety of formats.
Garrett> It does make
What command-line flags are you using when you start ntpd?
What do your ntp.conf files look like?
H
___
questions mailing list
questions@lists.ntp.isc.org
https://lists.ntp.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/questions
Jason C. Wells wrote:
> If the dispersion on a client machine is spiking at 8 seconds does that
> indicate that my NTP server wants to be a rodeo cowboy? But seriously...
>
> I gathered up the loop and peer stats per the FAQ, posted here:
>
> http://www.stradamotorsports.com/~jcw/NTP_Stats.xls
In article
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Greg Dowd) writes:
>
>That's cool that you tested this. Guess I better do the same :-) I
>sometimes wish Dave had a larger ego and would opine about the great
>stuff that he adds into the codebase. I assume some radixing code has
>been added to s
If the dispersion on a client machine is spiking at 8 seconds does that
indicate that my NTP server wants to be a rodeo cowboy? But seriously...
I gathered up the loop and peer stats per the FAQ, posted here:
http://www.stradamotorsports.com/~jcw/NTP_Stats.xls
If I restart all the NTP processe
Wolfgang S. Rupprecht wrote:
> Jan Ceuleers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Wolfgang S. Rupprecht wrote:
>>> NTP could have some simple registration protocol if the pools folks
>>> wanted to open up the pools to dynamic hosts.
>> 't Wouldn't be NTP that has the registration protocol, 't would be the
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Danny Mayer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Which would do you no good since we only distribute documentation in HTML.
Which is deeply and profoundly broken, but your choice, I suppose. It
does make the burden on everyone else quite a bit higher, to have to
maintain t
Danny Mayer wrote:
> Richard B. gilbert wrote:
>
>>Then perhaps the documentation needs to be updated! The 36 year "epoch"
>> (if that's the proper term) has been discussed before on this
>>newsgroup although not recently. Perhaps because it's rare for anyone
>>to start ntpd with a clock tha
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Per Hedeland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>And just to hopefully dispel some myths about *that*, i.e. Unix/POSIX
>time representation: First of all it really has nothing to do with NTP
>timestamps, but obviously ntpd needs to convert between the two. And it
>(currentl
Robert Dodier wrote:
> Well, even if the code is not changed, it would be extremely helpful
> to document the actual behavior of ntpd -g.
>
> That way people know that a ballpark date adjustment
> is necessary before ntpd can do anything useful.
> Even embedded systems guys read man pages
Wh
Carl Byington wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 09:41:31 -0700, Wolfgang S. Rupprecht wrote:
>
>
>> It has always bothered me that the TTL in the DNS record is stripped off
>> by the resolver code.
>
> The resolver code with headers in allows one to look at
> the raw data in the dns responses, incl
Richard B. gilbert wrote:
> Then perhaps the documentation needs to be updated! The 36 year "epoch"
> (if that's the proper term) has been discussed before on this
> newsgroup although not recently. Perhaps because it's rare for anyone
> to start ntpd with a clock that's off by 37 years! I
Maarten Wiltink wrote:
> For a service like NTP, making repeated UDP (connectionless) requests
> to the same host, a varying IP address on the server will never do.
>
Maarten, NTP doesn't currently do that. It asks once at startup time and
never again. Funny thing is I just answered the same ques
>>>
Message: 8
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 23:38:12 + (UTC)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Per Hedeland)
Subject: Re: [ntp:questions] ntpd sets clock to the year 1939
To: questions@lists.ntp.isc.org
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
In article
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Greg Dow
In article
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Greg Dowd) writes:
>
>The problem is not so much that NTP has a limitation on bits and an
>overflow condition. This is always the case. Dave was able to modify
>the code slightly, by switching to a double earlier, and change the
>window from 34 ye
On Mar 27, 3:05 pm, Harlan Stenn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I believe Dave's point is that this is trivial to work around -
It is trivial *once you know it must be done*.
As it stands, ntpd -g happily sets an incorrect date, and there
is no way to know from reading the available documentation o
Jan Ceuleers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Wolfgang S. Rupprecht wrote:
>> NTP could have some simple registration protocol if the pools folks
>> wanted to open up the pools to dynamic hosts.
>
> 't Wouldn't be NTP that has the registration protocol, 't would be the
> pool.
Perhaps I should rephr
If you do not like the X year limit at startup I recommend you lobby for
something more to your liking.
I think there are 2 places to lobby:
- Dave
- The IETF NTP WG
I believe Dave's point is that this is trivial to work around - one sets the
initial date to be either somewhere between the time
On Mar 27, 10:12 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Greg Dowd) wrote:
> Dave had talked about having ntp log an error, and/or die, if it is
> invoked on a system where the time difference between the const compile
> time and the system time exceeds some window. This doesn't help
> embedded systems guys but i
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 09:41:31 -0700, Wolfgang S. Rupprecht wrote:
> It has always bothered me that the TTL in the DNS record is stripped off
> by the resolver code.
The resolver code with headers in allows one to look at
the raw data in the dns res
Wolfgang S. Rupprecht wrote:
> NTP could have some simple registration protocol if the pools folks
> wanted to open up the pools to dynamic hosts.
't Wouldn't be NTP that has the registration protocol, 't would be the
pool. And the protocol already exists: it's called dynamic DNS.
Jan
_
Robert Dodier wrote:
> On Mar 27, 9:04 am, "Richard B. gilbert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
>
It's hardly ever a problem since most systems have a hardware clock of
some sort that can supply a reasonable starting point. In 2007, I don't
think that 1970-is a reasonable starting poi
On Mar 27, 9:04 am, "Richard B. gilbert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >>It's hardly ever a problem since most systems have a hardware clock of
> >>some sort that can supply a reasonable starting point. In 2007, I don't
> >>think that 1970-is a reasonable starting point.
I dunno. Zero is a pretty
"Maarten Wiltink" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> For a service like NTP, making repeated UDP (connectionless) requests
> to the same host, a varying IP address on the server will never do.
It doesn't have to be that way though. The voice over IP protocols
SIP and RTP deal with the same issues and
On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 11:04:02 -0400, "Richard B. gilbert"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Marc Brett wrote:
>> On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 19:01:00 -0400, "Richard B. gilbert"
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>Robert Dodier wrote:
On Mar 26, 12:50 pm, "Richard B. gilbert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>>>
Message: 8
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 07:49:36 GMT
From: "David J Taylor"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [ntp:questions] ntpd sets clock to the year 1939
To: questions@lists.ntp.isc.org
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Richard B. gilbert wrote:
[]
> It's hardly ever a problem
Marc Brett wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 19:01:00 -0400, "Richard B. gilbert"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>>Robert Dodier wrote:
>>
>>>On Mar 26, 12:50 pm, "Richard B. gilbert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
I believe that there is a limit to the date/time range that ntpd can
>
On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 19:01:00 -0400, "Richard B. gilbert"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Robert Dodier wrote:
>> On Mar 26, 12:50 pm, "Richard B. gilbert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I believe that there is a limit to the date/time range that ntpd can
>>>handle and that it's something lik
David J Taylor wrote:
> Richard B. gilbert wrote:
> []
>
>>It's hardly ever a problem since most systems have a hardware clock of
>>some sort that can supply a reasonable starting point. In 2007, I
>>don't think that 1970-is a reasonable starting point.
>
>
> Whilst I have some sympathy for tha
"Simon Lyall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Jan Ceuleers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> The potential problem with that is dynamic DNS, which uses artificially
>> low TTL values. I'm convinced that many pool servers have dynamic DNS
>> names (but I haven't verified t
Jan Ceuleers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>The potential problem with that is dynamic DNS, which uses artificially
>low TTL values. I'm convinced that many pool servers have dynamic DNS
>names (but I haven't verified this).
From: http://www.pool.ntp.org/join.html
"Your computer must have a static
Richard B. gilbert wrote:
[]
> It's hardly ever a problem since most systems have a hardware clock of
> some sort that can supply a reasonable starting point. In 2007, I
> don't think that 1970-is a reasonable starting point.
Whilst I have some sympathy for that viewpoint, NTP should not today ha
33 matches
Mail list logo
