In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Ask Bjørn Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Jul 29, 2005, at 10:10 AM, wayne wrote: > >> In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Brad Knowles <[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> abuse.org> writes: > > Please let's stick to talking about NTP or at least DNS as it relates > to NTP. Let's not talk about the details of the DNS setup here. I can see that DNS is off-topic, but this is in relation to the packets being sent for the NTP pool. In particular, it appears that the current packets, while smaller, are still not including all the information that should be there. I'm guessing that due to the packets being 492 bytes in size, there is only room for 4 of the 5 A records for the nameservers. I haven't checked, but Brad says that some name servers will still set the TC bit, thus causing TCP fallbacks. Also in that post, I said: : I really suspect that we don't need more than 3 name servers, as long : as they are both geographically and network topologically diverse, : they are well run, and they have a reasonable amount of bandwidth. If having 5 NS could be causing problems, is there a good reason not to reduce the number? -wayne _______________________________________________ timekeepers mailing list [email protected] https://fortytwo.ch/mailman/cgi-bin/listinfo/timekeepers
