[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