[ntp:questions] notrust alternative?
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