[ntp:questions] notrust alternative?

Ronan Flood ronan at noc.ulcc.ac.uk
Mon Nov 6 14:30:56 UTC 2006


"Richard B. Gilbert" <rgilbert88 at comcast.net> wrote:

> Is "symmetric passive" different from just saying, in ntp.conf:
> "server sunblok iburst"?  For the record,  that works without problems too!

"server xxx" establishes you as a client, "peer xxx" tries to establish
you as a peer.  If ntp.conf on box A has "peer B" and ntp.conf on box B
has "peer A", that is symmetric-active: each actively requests to peer
with the other.  If box A has "peer B" but box B has no reference to A,
then B can either treat A as a client (usual behaviour), or in the right
(or wrong!) circumstances can accept A as an unconfigured peer, and that
is symmetric-passive.  That seems to be what's happening with the original
poster's setup, with all those extras listed in ntpq -p.  Generally it is
not desirable ...

-- 
                      Ronan Flood <R.Flood at noc.ulcc.ac.uk>
                        working for but not speaking for
             Network Services, University of London Computer Centre
     (which means: don't bother ULCC if I've said something you don't like)




More information about the questions mailing list