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

Danny Mayer mayer at ntp.isc.org
Thu Sep 21 16:51:34 UTC 2006

Luc Pardon wrote:
> 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.

Now I wonder why you don't look at the restrict statement particularly
the noquery option?


>> Best regards,
>> Heiko
>     Luc
> _______________________________________________
> questions mailing list
> questions at lists.ntp.isc.org
> https://lists.ntp.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/questions

More information about the questions mailing list