I have noticed the same two way relationship forming for some people connecting. At one point it had picked a client as its preferred source and it was listed as unsynchronized. Even though other peers were available and at a lower stratum. I will look at that ACL option and make a change. Thanks, Will
________________________________ From: Rusty Dekema [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Mon 9/10/2007 11:04 AM To: [email protected] Cc: William Carlson Subject: Re: [time] Cisco router as pool server On 9/10/07, William Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I contributed to the pool before when I had a colo server. I decided to come > back and am using my cisco router as the server. I configured NTP as I have > always done but the tracking software keeps seeing problems(clock will go > unsynchronized or drift). Has/is anyone running a cisco router in the pool? > I can port forward if needed but I was hoping to get this working on the > router. > Thanks, > Will I was until recently running a Cisco 4700 (IOS c4500-jk9s-mz.122-31) as a pool server and I never noticed any problems with it either in general or via the pool tracking system. I don't know for a fact that this mattered, but I had an "ntp access-group peer" ACL set up to contain the IPs of the servers and peers that I wanted the router to get time from, and a separate "ntp access-group serve" ACL set to allow access from any IP, for hosts that I wanted the router to serve time to, but that I did not want the router to get time from. Again, it was a long time ago that I configured this and I didn't exactly understand all the details at the time, but the reason I set this up is that it appeared that many clients wanted to form a symmetric association with my server, which would clearly be undesirable since the purpose of the pool is to serve time to clients that have no other time source. Rusty
_______________________________________________ timekeepers mailing list [email protected] https://fortytwo.ch/mailman/cgi-bin/listinfo/timekeepers
