In article , g8...@uko2.co.uk
says...
>
> Hi All.
>
> As people on here seem to know about all this, a question if I may.
>
> This came up while in discussion with another party, in regards to
> potential "steps" in time caused by allowing w32time to do the job,
> instead of a custom app, or
"Steve Kostecke" wrote in message
news:slrni1ukvt.vh7.koste...@stasis.kostecke.net...
[]
You could file an enhancement request in our BTS (at
http://bugs.ntp.org) to let our developers know that you'd like to
have this feature added. But, unless people step up to the plate and
contribute, you w
On 2010-06-21, David J Taylor wrote:
> "Steve Kostecke" wrote in message
>
>> There is an ./ntpsnmpd directory in ntp-dev and ntp-stable.
>>
>> The earliest mention of snmp I can find in the ntp-dev ChangeLog is
>> (4.2.5p130) 2008/09/13
>
> Thanks, Steve. Yes, I know there is work ongoing, but
"Steve Kostecke" wrote in message
news:slrni1tbbt.fk7.koste...@stasis.kostecke.net...
On 2010-06-18, David J Taylor wrote:
I would welcome SNMP in NTP and have said so on a number of occasions.
There is an ./ntpsnmpd directory in ntp-dev and ntp-stable.
The earliest mention of snmp I can f
On 2010-06-18, David J Taylor wrote:
> I would welcome SNMP in NTP and have said so on a number of occasions.
There is an ./ntpsnmpd directory in ntp-dev and ntp-stable.
The earliest mention of snmp I can find in the ntp-dev ChangeLog is
(4.2.5p130) 2008/09/13
--
Steve Kostecke
NTP Public Se
On 2010-06-18, Richard B. Gilbert wrote:
> David J Taylor wrote:
>> "Ryan Malayter" wrote in message
>> news:aanlktimovwejjo8twxa2xwgep4dhebgalgqv1vnhi...@mail.gmail.com...
>> []
>>> The fact that niether the reference implementation nor w32time have
>>> direct support for SNMP, a *far* more wid
David J Taylor wrote:
>
> "Rob" wrote in message
> news:slrni1p6rl.m7v.nom...@xs8.xs4all.nl...
>> David J Taylor wrote:
>>> "David Woolley" wrote in message
>>> news:hvi540$s8...@news.eternal-september.org...
Rob wrote:
> Windows NT had a time service, but at that time it was still ca
"Rob" wrote in message
news:slrni1p6rl.m7v.nom...@xs8.xs4all.nl...
David J Taylor wrote:
"David Woolley" wrote in message
news:hvi540$s8...@news.eternal-september.org...
Rob wrote:
Windows NT had a time service, but at that time it was still called
TIMESERV. It had its config in TIMESERV
David J Taylor wrote:
> "David Woolley" wrote in message
> news:hvi540$s8...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> Rob wrote:
>>> Windows NT had a time service, but at that time it was still called
>>> TIMESERV. It had its config in TIMESERV.INI instead of in the
>>> registry.
>>
>> It also wasn't
David Woolley wrote:
> Rob wrote:
>> Windows NT had a time service, but at that time it was still called
>> TIMESERV. It had its config in TIMESERV.INI instead of in the registry.
>
> It also wasn't based on NTP wire formats. I think it used SMB, as for
> Windows for Workstations.
Incorrect, i
"David Woolley" wrote in message
news:hvi540$s8...@news.eternal-september.org...
Rob wrote:
Windows NT had a time service, but at that time it was still called
TIMESERV. It had its config in TIMESERV.INI instead of in the
registry.
It also wasn't based on NTP wire formats. I think it used
"Rob" wrote in message
news:slrni1p277.kei.nom...@xs8.xs4all.nl...
[]
Windows NT had a time service, but at that time it was still called
TIMESERV. It had its config in TIMESERV.INI instead of in the registry.
I guess it was a left-over from the times before the registry.
(OS/2 maybe?)
Chec
Rob wrote:
Windows NT had a time service, but at that time it was still called
TIMESERV. It had its config in TIMESERV.INI instead of in the registry.
It also wasn't based on NTP wire formats. I think it used SMB, as for
Windows for Workstations.
___
David J Taylor wrote:
> "David Woolley" wrote in message
> news:hvgor5$8h...@news.eternal-september.org...
> []
>> The reference version was available for the Windows NT family long
>> before W32Time. It was available for versions of NT that never had
>> W32Time.
>
> Interesting, David. The
"David Woolley" wrote in message
news:hvgor5$8h...@news.eternal-september.org...
[]
The reference version was available for the Windows NT family long
before W32Time. It was available for versions of NT that never had
W32Time.
Interesting, David. The earliest NTP file I have on the system
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 17:31 UTC, Ryan Malayter wrote:
> There is still no published RFC for NTPv4.
That's true, but it will not be true for much longer:
http://www.rfc-editor.org/cluster_info.php?cid=C76
I encourage you to click on the underlined AUTH48 links. All authors
of the four pending
David J Taylor wrote:
Early versions of W32time (up to XP, but I'm not 100% sure) just stepped
the clock, with a default update interval of 8 days. Over a week!
Later versions (Server 2003 and later, I believe) had more NTP-like
behaviour, but did not conform to the management protocols of N
David J Taylor wrote:
"Ryan Malayter" wrote in message
news:aanlktimovwejjo8twxa2xwgep4dhebgalgqv1vnhi...@mail.gmail.com...
[]
The fact that niether the reference implementation nor w32time have
direct support for SNMP, a *far* more widely used and documented
managment standard, would seem to
"Ryan Malayter" wrote in message
news:aanlktimovwejjo8twxa2xwgep4dhebgalgqv1vnhi...@mail.gmail.com...
[]
The fact that niether the reference implementation nor w32time have
direct support for SNMP, a *far* more widely used and documented
managment standard, would seem to be another way to look
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 10:47 AM, David J Taylor
wrote:
> In practice, in a mixed environment, where other implementations of NTP do
> conform to an accepted management standard,
> having the Microsoft Windows
> W32time not conform to the same standard is, at the very least, an
> operational incon
"Ryan Malayter" wrote in message
news:aanlktik-l6s7b-xectebamftt8v3y3-9duwyckt4i...@mail.gmail.com...
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 5:34 AM, David J Taylor
wrote:
Later
versions (Server 2003 and later, I believe) had more NTP-like
behaviour, but
did not conform to the management protocols of NTP (
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 5:34 AM, David J Taylor
wrote:
> Later
> versions (Server 2003 and later, I believe) had more NTP-like behaviour, but
> did not conform to the management protocols of NTP (so you can't check the
> offset), didn't use ntp.conf, couldn't be used as ref-clocks, and likely
> d
Mr Dave Baxter wrote:
> Hi All.
>
> As people on here seem to know about all this, a question if I may.
>
> This came up while in discussion with another party, in regards to
> potential "steps" in time caused by allowing w32time to do the job,
> instead of a custom app, or "feature" in yet anot
"Mr Dave Baxter" wrote in message
news:mpg.26854e5ff4b4b56a989...@aioe.org...
Hi All.
As people on here seem to know about all this, a question if I may.
This came up while in discussion with another party, in regards to
potential "steps" in time caused by allowing w32time to do the job,
inste
Hi All.
As people on here seem to know about all this, a question if I may.
This came up while in discussion with another party, in regards to
potential "steps" in time caused by allowing w32time to do the job,
instead of a custom app, or "feature" in yet another program.
What I'd like to ask,
Richard B. Gilbert wrote:
> Danny Mayer wrote:
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>>> Is this supported or possible in Windows 2000?
>>>
>>> I've managed to edit the registry to point at my local NTP server and
>>> this works fine. The NTP host supports MD5 authentication and,
>>> ideally, I'd like the
Steve Kostecke wrote:
> On 2008-03-23, Richard B. Gilbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>>Perhaps the OP meant that he would like the client to be able to
>>ascertain that the server really is the server he configured. Isn't
>>that, after all, the purpose of authentication?
>
>
> The OP ask
On 2008-03-23, Richard B. Gilbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Perhaps the OP meant that he would like the client to be able to
> ascertain that the server really is the server he configured. Isn't
> that, after all, the purpose of authentication?
The OP asked about encryption (note the subjec
Danny Mayer wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>>Is this supported or possible in Windows 2000?
>>
>>I've managed to edit the registry to point at my local NTP server and
>>this works fine. The NTP host supports MD5 authentication and,
>>ideally, I'd like the Windows 2000 client to use this when
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Is this supported or possible in Windows 2000?
>
> I've managed to edit the registry to point at my local NTP server and
> this works fine. The NTP host supports MD5 authentication and,
> ideally, I'd like the Windows 2000 client to use this when requesting
> from the NT
On Mar 20, 8:41 am, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is this supported or possible in Windows 2000?
>
> I've managed to edit the registry to point at my local NTP server and
> this works fine. The NTP host supports MD5 authentication and,
> ideally, I'd like the Windows 2000 client
Is this supported or possible in Windows 2000?
I've managed to edit the registry to point at my local NTP server and
this works fine. The NTP host supports MD5 authentication and,
ideally, I'd like the Windows 2000 client to use this when requesting
from the NTP server.
__
32 matches
Mail list logo
