[ntp:questions] NTPv4 Peer Event Codes - secret decoder ring sought

[unruh]

On 2010-03-19, David Mills <mills at udel.edu> wrote:
> Joe,
>
> That's a typo; event 16 does not exist. Glad you caught that.

Pretty elaborate typo. Did they mean to give it a number other than 16,
or were 50 letters somehow mistyped?


>
> Dave
>
> Joseph Gwinn wrote:
>
>>Dave,
>>
>>In article <4BA2C1FF.3060803 at udel.edu>, David Mills <mills at udel.edu> wrote:
>>
>>  
>>
>>>Joe,
>>>
>>>You and Dave are working way too hard. The bits and pieces are 
>>>documented on the ntpq page and on the Event Messages and Status Codes page.
>>>    
>>>
>>
>>This would be <http://www.eecis.udel.edu/~mills/ntp/html/decode.html#peer>, 
>>which I didn't know about, but is exactly what I seek.  And it wasn't a secret 
>>after all.
>>
>>But I have a question, a homework example, and a suggestion.
>>
>>First the question:  The Code field of the Peer Status Word is 4 bits wide, and 
>>yet codes are defined for values from 1 to 10 hex (decimal 16), which doesn't 
>>quite map.  How does the code value fit into the field?  Wraparound, so 10 (TAI) 
>>becomes zero?
>>
>>
>>The homework example:  The PSW word that started this exercise is "963a".  If I 
>>understand, this word decodes as follows:
>>
>>Status field - host_reachable plus persistent_association
>>
>>Select field - system_peer (gets the star)
>>
>>Count field - 3
>>
>>Code field - become system peer (assuming code values are truncated to 4 bits, 
>>so hex 10 becomes 0)  
>>
>>And 9614 decodes to host_reachable plus persistent_association, system_peer 
>>(gets the star), count=1, and server_reachable.
>>
>>
>>And the suggestion:  I was misled by some of the NTPv4 documentation, 
>>specifically the NTPv4 peerstats file documentation in 
>><http://www.eecis.udel.edu/~mills/ntp/html/monopt.html>.  
>>
>>The note under the table defining peerstats record fields reads "The status 
>>field is encoded in hex format as described in Appendix B of the NTP 
>>specification RFC 1305".  This is no longer really true, as you discuss below.  
>>In particular, codes exceeding 5 are not defined in 1305, and some of the 
>>definitions appear to have changed (or at least have been clarified) so it would 
>>be helpful to add a pointer to 
>><http://www.eecis.udel.edu/~mills/ntp/html/decode.html#peer> to monopt.html.
>>
>>
>>  
>>
>>>RFC-1305  was written in 1992. It's been 18 years since then, so you 
>>>should expect changes from time to time. Changes are not done lightly; 
>>>they reflect updates in the algorithms and interpretation of the 
>>>statistics and state variables. If the interpretation  has not changed, 
>>>the name and code have not changed. If it has been changed or has become 
>>>obsolete, the name is not reused.
>>>    
>>>
>>
>>This is good.  There is far too much existing base to do it any other way.
>>
>>Thanks,
>>
>>Joe Gwinn
>>
>>
>>  
>>
>>>Dave
>>>
>>>Joseph Gwinn wrote:
>>>
>>>    
>>>
>>>>In article 
>>>><46f5ae0a-93d6-44ea-812f-e4da2ae2c8a6 at a16g2000pre.googlegroups.com>,
>>>>Dave Hart <davehart at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> 
>>>>
>>>>      
>>>>
>>>>>There were backward-incompatible changes on May 13, 2008 for ntp-dev
>>>>>4.2.5p114:
>>>>>
>>>>><http://ntp.bkbits.net:8080/ntp-dev/?PAGE=cset&REV=48295cccnu3e5cmGhOzAS7hA-
>>>>>pVG3A>
>>>>>
>>>>>Once again statestr.c is your friend:
>>>>>
>>>>><http://ntp.bkbits.net:8080/ntp-dev/libntp/statestr.c?PAGE=diffs&REV=4829513
>>>>>7L4-SOuAy6YZauDbZtW6DRg>
>>>>>
>>>>>If you want to be able to decode these bits for ntpd versions from
>>>>>before and after the change correctly, you need to query the version
>>>>>string of ntpd, sadly, such as with:
>>>>>
>>>>>ntpq -c "rv 0 version"
>>>>>   
>>>>>
>>>>>        
>>>>>
>>>>So that's how you get the NTP version (rather than the ntpq version)!
>>>>
>>>>When our sysadmins first installed NTPv4, they used the version command of 
>>>>ntpq, 
>>>>which said "4".  Check!  
>>>>
>>>>I came by a few days later to look at the purported NTPv4 loopstats and 
>>>>peerstats files, and (ever suspicious) checked to see what version of NTP 
>>>>had in 
>>>>fact generated them.  Still NTPv3.  The sysadmins had been snookered by 
>>>>ntpq, 
>>>>which failed to make unambiguous whose version it was reporting upon.  
>>>>
>>>>This had also happened to me back in the days of NTPv3, but I was saved 
>>>>because 
>>>>I knew that "4" could not be the answer.  But I never did figure out how to 
>>>>get 
>>>>ntpq to tell me the version of the ntp daemon. 
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 
>>>>
>>>>      
>>>>
>>>>>and then parse for 4.2.5p114 or later.  The format for the version
>>>>>string can include an optional -RC# suffix, and before long, there may
>>>>>be releases with a -beta# suffix in the -stable branch, such as
>>>>>4.2.6p2-beta1 as a prelude to 4.2.6p2-RC1.
>>>>>   
>>>>>
>>>>>        
>>>>>
>>>>Still evolving, rapidly.  OK.  I will have to find out exactly which version 
>>>>I 
>>>>have.  I have no need to decode status from prior versions.  I need only to 
>>>>understand the status codes from what I am running, to understand what is 
>>>>and is 
>>>>not working in my system.  Fixes have included giving NTP and related 
>>>>traffic 
>>>>its own dedicated LAN and LAN ports on the hosts, to reduce buffeting of NTP 
>>>>packets and/or the daemon by unrelated but heavy packet traffic.  The 
>>>>buffeting 
>>>>causes what appear to be large, random, and often asymmetric transport 
>>>>delays.
>>>>
>>>>Is there available a written discussion of which changes were made and why?  
>>>>This could be worth reading.
>>>>
>>>>More generally, these backward-incompatible changes will cause great 
>>>>confusion 
>>>>and difficulty in transitioning to NTPv4 unless ntpq is kept up to date, and 
>>>>the 
>>>>descriptions of what the various status codes mean are both complete and 
>>>>correct 
>>>>- telegraphic summaries are not usually enough for non-developers to 
>>>>understand.
>>>>
>>>>Looking at the code you suggested, I also see that the variable names are 
>>>>the 
>>>>same as in NTPv3 (and the names imply the original NTPv3 meanings), but the 
>>>>new 
>>>>NTPv4 comments on those variables seem to contradict the meanings implied by 
>>>>the 
>>>>names.  Not knowing the history makes it difficult to figure out just what 
>>>>is 
>>>>now meant.
>>>>
>>>>Thanks,
>>>>
>>>>Joe Gwinn
>>>>
>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>questions mailing list
>>>>questions at lists.ntp.org
>>>>http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/questions
>>>> 
>>>>
>>>>      
>>>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>questions mailing list
>>questions at lists.ntp.org
>>http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/questions
>>  
>>