[ntp:questions] Re: "Listen on" semantics

[Luc Pardon]

Heiko Gerstung wrote:
> Luc Pardon schrieb:
>> [... very interesting but long security discussion ...]
>>
>>
>>     It certainly would make _me_ happy. What I miss in OpenNTPD is not 
>> so much the reduced precision as the lack of ntpq.
> 
> Sorry for eating all the quoted text, but I only wanted to ask you why 
> there is no such thing as ntpq for OpenNTPD?
> 
    No problem about eating the text, I only hope you won't get stomach 
problems <g>.

> Where do you think would the "server" part get all the information that 
> ntpq shows to you?
> 
> In order to provide this, the "client" part (ntpd in your scenario) 
> would at least have to listen for ntpq queries.
> 
> I would think that adding a configuration statement that specifies one 
> or more interfaces ntpd should listen on would be the easiest solution, no?
> 

     This would in fact be one reason to combine client and server 
functionality in one daemon, so that the server part could easily look 
at the info that the time client keeps around. If you make the client 
listen to ntpq-queries, there is no real reason it can't answer the 
regular time queries as well.

    But in any case, yes, the interface where ntpq queries are accepted 
should be configurable.


> Best regards,
> Heiko

     Luc