[ntp:questions] Re: sendto(18.104.22.168): Invalid argument
edrusba at free.fr
Mon Aug 15 20:44:04 UTC 2005
Brad Knowles wrote:
> At 8:55 PM +0100 2005-08-13, David Woolley wrote:
>>> I guess, the best solution waiting for next ntpd release, as described
>>> by Steve Kostecke, is to have my local ntpd server for my local network
>>> be "inside" the network without any dynamic IP address.
>> Note that I believe that the proposed solution is to either periodically
>> scan for new interfaces or to scan when a server fails.
> Personally, I think you probably need to do both. You need to
> periodically rescan the interfaces, in case a new interface has been
> added but no old ones have gone away, and you need to also detect when
> old ones have disappeared.
Detecting when an old interface has "disappeared" should be possible
looking at the errno global variable when sendto() system call returns
an error (errno = EINVAL). And I guess, like Bind does, a periodic
interface scanning plus an "on event" scanning (when sendto() returns an
error) should be "large" enough to address this problem?
More information about the questions