On Nov 23, 2009, at 9:14, Shoppa, Tim wrote:

> I think that because of the way the load will be distributed across time and 
> space, that the
> vast majority of vendors who use well-behaved NTP clients should be allowed 
> as part of
> the rules of engagement to use pool.ntp.org without even asking.

I think by definition everyone believes they have a well-behaved NTP client.  
Remember that there's absolutely no mitigation we can do when someone turns out 
not to.

The vendor system gives us a chance of doing so.  It also distributes load 
better by spreading out the namespace with relatively little extra load on the 
DNS servers.

More importantly though; requiring/encouraging vendors to get a vendor zone 
gives us a contact and a chance of doing a bit of education/sanity checking 
with them (as someone else implied).

As the final benefit: It also allows us more flexibility in what DNS responses 
we give out.  For example my long-term plan is to make pool.ntp.org 'sntp 
friendly' vs 'ntp friendly'[1] vendor pools for vendors using a regular ntp 
peer (and some other alias for people doing manual configuration, I suppose).


 - ask

sntp friendly = disable errant servers very fast; but don't worry about long 
term stability, IPs might change fast.

ntp friendly = temporary downtime is okay; but IPs must be very "long term".

-- 
http://develooper.com/ - http://askask.com/


_______________________________________________
timekeepers mailing list
[email protected]
https://fortytwo.ch/mailman/cgi-bin/listinfo/timekeepers

Reply via email to