[ntp:questions] Re: how many servers should I poll?
David L. Mills
mills at udel.edu
Mon Aug 11 02:58:23 UTC 2003
Not to put too fine a point on it, but the recent debacle flood of NTP
packets at U Wisconsin will scare the pants off any ISPs that know about
it. Heck, it scares the pants off me.
Brian Garrett wrote:
> "Maarten Wiltink" <maarten at kittensandcats.net> wrote in message
> news:3f3607ff$0$49098$e4fe514c at news.xs4all.nl...
>>Mike Ayers wrote in message ...
>>>Ummm - why is everyone so eager to find servers of dubious quality?
>>>there a list of servers of good quality, or at least attempted good
>>>posted? Being tightly synced to a loosely synced server may not be the
>>It has to do with playing nice and not overburdening servers high in
>>the tree. The stratum tree was designed in for a good reason: it scales
>>very well... except of course for the thousands of people who think
>>only stratum 1 is good enough for them.
>>There's also the idea that it's a reasonable expectation of an ISP that
>>they provide this service. It's their part of playing nice, if you will.
> If only more ISP's agreed with you. When I was first told that Cox had no
> NTP server available and found out the next day that that was false, I
> thought perhaps their tech support droids were simply unaware that they had
> one. The more I hear of professionals talking being told by their ISP's
> being told by service reps that their server have no NTP servers available,
> the more convinced I am that most ISP's don't *want* their customers to know
> about their NTP service. Why this is, I'm not certain; we certainly pay
> them enough. Perhaps those of us who are treated this way need to call
> their bluff more often.
> A network that is not synchronized is asking for trouble, and any ISP worthy
> of the name knows this. Of *course* they have a time server available--they
> just need to be persuaded that allowing their paying customers to use it
> once in a while is a good thing.
More information about the questions