[ntp:questions] notrust alternative?

Richard B. Gilbert rgilbert88 at comcast.net
Mon Nov 6 20:38:31 UTC 2006


Ronan Flood wrote:
> "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 ...
> 

Some of those lines in the ntpq -p banner were stratum two and could 
have been peers.  The rest were stratum three so I don't see how they 
could have been peers; don't peers have be of equal strata?




More information about the questions mailing list