[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