[ntp:questions] Re: Public servers?

David L. Mills mills at udel.edu
Mon Aug 4 14:03:43 UTC 2003


You make good points; however, keep in mind the U Wisconsin debacle. The 
Netgear folks were tarred and feathered bigtime, even if my 
recommendation they be sued for damages and forced to recall defective 
routers has not happened.However, what good came of the exercise was 
that Netgear developed a design policy document that is consistent with 
best practices proposed in the RFC-2030 update, including respect for 
the KoD packet.

See http://www.eecis.udel.edu/~mills/database/rfc/rfc-xxxx.pdf. Keep in 
mind this is a proposed RFC, but at the instant has not been submitted 
to the   RFC Editor. I would very much welcome advice, amendment and 
corrections to that document.


David Woolley wrote:
> In article <mailman.16.1059945885.1777.questions at ntp.org>,
> Brad Knowles <brad.knowles at skynet.be> wrote:
>>	Which means what?  That anyone should be allowed to abuse any 
>>server they like in any way they like?!?
> It means that any mechanism to ensure globally efficient use of NTP cannot
> rely on users making informed decisions about anything other then monetary,
> or possibly, personal time costs.
> Consequently, it means that the only way that people will act responsibly
> is if the cost to them is proportional to the cost to the network.  To  achieve
> that, you probably have to both reduce the cost of doing the right thing and
> increase the cost of doing the wrong thing.  For most users, fighting through
> an ISP's support system is much more expensive than using the first
> stratum 1 server in the public servers list (people will assume that a
> stratum two may not be as good quality), or using a program that finds the
> nearest NTP capable router.
> For a vendor, using USNO, which they can assume will always be there,
> is much cheaper than providing advice to their users and leaving the
> system unconfigured would make the product less saleable.
> Decisions ceased to be made on the basis of anything other than "what's
> best for me in the short term" when the internet was commercialised.
> Note that you cannot enforce good behaviour in a client, without heavy
> use of intellectual property law, as market forces will result in more
> successful competing products that are the same but without the restriction.
> (This is potentially true of kiss-of-death; there is no benefit to a mass
> market commercial vendor in supporting that in their clients, only the
> cost of actually finding and removing the code will stop them removing it.)
> PS Please do not duplicate postings in email, and if insist on doing so,
> please don't post through a mechanism that corrupts the Message-ID, making
> it impossible to anticipate the posting's arrival.   Actually, the original
> Message-ID is an example of users doing things for ease rather than best
> operation of the internet.  Message-IDs include the host name to define
> the scope of uniqueness of the rest of the identity, but yours contains
> a non-unique network 10 address, so could clash with other network 10
> users.  (The best solution I've seen for senders who don't know their
> domain name, or don't want to reveal it, is Agent, which makes the "user"
> field unique and and uses a domain owned by the vendor to scope that.)

More information about the questions mailing list