[ntp:questions] Re: [Version 3 & 4] Aren't NTP stratums 17 ... 256 (1001b...11111111b) totally pointless? Why not use these extra bits for a CRC-4...
Harlan Stenn
stenn at ntp.isc.org
Tue Jun 6 04:04:57 UTC 2006
>>> In article <e62t3a$hei$1 at gnus01.u.washington.edu>, "Max Power" <mikehack at u.washington.edu> writes:
Max> [Version 3 & 4] Aren't NTP stratums 17 ... 256 (1001b...11111111b)
Max> totally pointless? Why not use these extra bits for a CRC-4 ... for
Max> all the bits used in that datafield. At least the CRC-4 could be put
Max> to some use.
What actual problem are you trying to solve?
Max> * Only about 1% of know NTP servers are Stratum [8...16]
so what? The remaining stratum are very useful for use inside "your" local
network - to do this with, say, 3 local servers one needs 7 or 8 stratum
numbers below the outside servers.
Max> * The stratum hierarchy (and accuracy of a vast majority of public NTP
Max> servers) are not policed that well, as there is no distributed NTP
Max> application being used to find lists of dodgy NTP servers.
I don't see what this has to do with your main point.
Is this a service you would be willing to pay for?
Max> * The NTP
Max> time distribution system would probably work best with only 8 stratums
Max> anyway.
Please show how you think this would be true.
Max> Will this surplus stratum problem be fixed in NTPv5?
I don't see the problem you think is there.
H
More information about the questions
mailing list