Maarten Wiltink wrote:
> "Steve Kostecke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [...]
>> Currently NTP uses port 123/UDP for both the source and destination
>> port. What you are proposing would require the use of a different source
>> port to work on a single-homed host.
Maarten Wiltink wrote:
> Could you say more about that? I realise that it's not as clean cut as
> the division between an FTP client and server, and that NTP may be
> better served by a model like for example the server always requiring
> some interchangeable client module(s?) being plugged into i
"Unruh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> "Maarten Wiltink" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
>> The client part might operate without a server, or perhaps a downgraded
>> server that does not serve time but only offers status monitoring.
>
> Sure, but the server cannot
"Maarten Wiltink" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>"Danny Mayer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Maarten Wiltink wrote:
>>> As a software guy, I've wondered before about the monolithic nature
>>> of the NTP package. Splitting it into a client and server part ...
>> Ma
"Danny Mayer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Maarten Wiltink wrote:
>> As a software guy, I've wondered before about the monolithic nature
>> of the NTP package. Splitting it into a client and server part ...
> Maarten, NTP is unusual in that it does not lend itself
Johnson, John-P63914 wrote:
>> One instance of ntpd is all that is necessary to perform both of these
>
>> tasks at the same time.
>
>
> I realize that what I am trying to do is very easily accomplished with
> one
> instance of ntpd. However, I assure you that the manner in which I am
> trying
Maarten Wiltink wrote:
>
> As a software guy, I've wondered before about the monolithic nature of
> the NTP package. Splitting it into a client and server part might make
> some people (think OpenBSD) very happy. The objection when raised earlier
> was that the server may be asked for statistics a
Maarten Wiltink wrote:
>
> An SNTP or local clock server might have to make some of them up.
> System peer? Root dispersion?
A conforming SNTP server is required to have a locally attached
reference clock. The only other situation in which SNTP is allowed is
where only the client is SNTP, but
David L. Mills wrote:
> Maartin and others,
>
> The intended model for monitoring and control is clearly articulated in
> the control and monitoring protocol defined in rfc 1305. This model
I can't speak for Maartin, but I was talking about the operation of the
protocol itself. The values in
Maartin and others,
The intended model for monitoring and control is clearly articulated in
the control and monitoring protocol defined in rfc 1305. This model
provides status words and event codes explicitly designed for remote
access and as a demarcation between the idiosyncratic inner workin
"David Woolley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Maarten Wiltink wrote:
>> "David Woolley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> stratum
>>> root distance
>>> root dispersion
>>> system peer
>>> local reference time
>>> leap bits
>>> etc.
>
Maarten Wiltink wrote:
> "David Woolley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> stratum
>> root distance
>> root dispersion
>> system peer
>> local reference time
>> leap bits
>> etc.
>
> Yes. Those are all client-part statistics that could easily be made
> available to
"David Woolley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Maarten Wiltink wrote:
>> [...] The server part would
>> assume or require that the clock is being disciplined by a client
>> implementation.
>
> It needs to share rather more than the clock. Things like:
>
> stratum
Maarten Wiltink wrote:
>
> This _is_ what I'd call the 'client part'. The server part would
> assume or require that the clock is being disciplined by a client
> implementation.
It needs to share rather more than the clock. Things like:
stratum
root distance
root dispersion
system peer
local r
Maarten Wiltink <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm no IP wizard, but isn't there a SO_REUSEPORT flag or something
> like that?
It still (IIRC) lacks sufficient ubiquity and the semantics on the
various platforms may not match what is desired.
rick jones
--
denial, anger, bargaining, depression, ac
"Steve Kostecke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[...]
> Currently NTP uses port 123/UDP for both the source and destination
> port. What you are proposing would require the use of a different source
> port to work on a single-homed host. This would result in a DOS when
Steve Kostecke wrote:
> FWIW: ntpdc is version specific and it's use has been discouraged on
> more than one occasion.
FWIW: I routinely use ntpdc to add/remove associations ('addserver' and
'unconfig') and to fudge time1 values. It seems to work fine for those
purposes. Before using it, however
On 2008-03-11, Maarten Wiltink <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Steve Kostecke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>
>> There is considerable overlap between an "NTP Client" and an "NTP
>> Server".
>>
>> "NTP Clients" and "NTP Servers" both:
>>
>> 1. Poll time sources (e.g. "NTP Servers", ref-clock
On 2008-03-11, Johnson, John-P63914 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I realize that what I am trying to do is very easily accomplished with
> one instance of ntpd. However, I assure you that the manner in which I
> am trying to accomplish it is absolutely necessary for my particular
> application.
Ca
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Johnson, John-P63914) writes:
>> One instance of ntpd is all that is necessary to perform both of these
>> tasks at the same time.
>I realize that what I am trying to do is very easily accomplished with
>one
>instance of ntpd. However, I assure you that the manner in which
> One instance of ntpd is all that is necessary to perform both of these
> tasks at the same time.
I realize that what I am trying to do is very easily accomplished with
one
instance of ntpd. However, I assure you that the manner in which I am
trying to accomplish it is absolutely necessary fo
"Steve Kostecke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On 2008-03-11, Maarten Wiltink <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> As a software guy, I've wondered before about the monolithic nature of
>> the NTP package. Splitting it into a client and server part might make
>> some peopl
On 2008-03-11, Maarten Wiltink <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Steve Kostecke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>
>> John Johnson wrote:
>>
>>> Now, is what I am trying to do feasible?
>>
>> One ntpd is all you need.
>
> I think you must be using a different definition of the word
> 'feasible' f
"Steve Kostecke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> John Johnson wrote:
[...]
>> Now, is what I am trying to do feasible?
>
> No.
>
> One ntpd is all you need.
I think you must be using a different definition of the word 'feasible'
from everybody else.
As a software guy
Steve Kostecke wrote:
> On 2008-03-10, Johnson, John-P63914 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> I want one ntpd instance to discipline the local clock with time from
>> servers on network A. I want the other instance to serve the local
>> time to clients on network B.
If you had two instances, the B
John Johnson wrote:
>John Johnson wrote:
>
>> I want one ntpd instance to discipline the local clock with time from
>> servers on network A. I want the other instance to serve the local
>> time to clients on network B.
>
> Additionally, I was considering running the ntpd instance A with the
> -q o
Johnson, John-P63914 wrote:
>
>>We don't know what you are trying to do since you haven't told us.
>
>
> I apologize for the lack of clarity.
>
> I want one ntpd instance to discipline the local clock with time from
> servers
> on network A. I want the other instance to serve the local time to
On 2008-03-10, Johnson, John-P63914 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I want one ntpd instance to discipline the local clock with time from
> servers on network A. I want the other instance to serve the local
> time to clients on network B.
Once instance of ntpd is all that is necessary to perform bot
> I want one ntpd instance to discipline the local clock with time from
servers
> on network A. I want the other instance to serve the local time to
clients
> on network B.
Additionally, I was considering running the ntpd instance A with the -q
option
as a cron job.
Now, is what I am trying to
> We don't know what you are trying to do since you haven't told us.
I apologize for the lack of clarity.
I want one ntpd instance to discipline the local clock with time from
servers
on network A. I want the other instance to serve the local time to
clients on
network B.
Thank you
Johnny
__
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Johnson, John-P63914) writes:
>Hello,
>I have a machine with two network interfaces. I need to have two
>instances of
But it has only one clock! Exactly what do you hope to accompplish?
>ntpd running, one for each interface. Initially I attempted to
ntp is for disciplini
Johnson, John-P63914 wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I have a machine with two network interfaces. I need to have two
> instances of ntpd running, one for each interface.
Why would you want that? What problem are you trying solve? You
shouldn't be doing this.
> Initially I attempted to partition the two
Johnson, John-P63914 wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I have a machine with two network interfaces. I need to have two
> instances of
> ntpd running, one for each interface.
What problem are you trying to solve?
There is only ONE system clock and only one copy of ntpd can discipline
that clock.
__
Hello,
I have a machine with two network interfaces. I need to have two
instances of
ntpd running, one for each interface. Initially I attempted to
partition the two
by restricting all access from network B to ntpd instance A and vice
versa in
their respective ntp.conf's. However, I soon disco
34 matches
Mail list logo
