[ntp:questions] notrust alternative?

ntplist at gmail.com ntplist at gmail.com
Wed Nov 15 18:23:48 UTC 2006


Dave,

Yes, the clients should definitely have been configured with server
statements, but config files were simply copied in this case, cleanup
is imminent.  My point was to illustrate that with "restrict default
nopeer" and "disable auth" configured on the server, there is a
difference in behavior between a built-from-source 4.2.2p3 daemon and
these (questionable heritage) prebuilt 4.2.0 daemons (CSW and
Mandrake).

Bill

David L. Mills wrote:

> Bill,
>
> In your network the clients should be using server, not peer, unless
> they intend to mobilize a symmetric association. However, without
> notrust they get served anyway, but an association is not mobilized. I
> did that for the original Windows XP client that was using symmetric
> active mode in error. It's hard to figure out how the dominos should
> fall under all kinds of misconfigured clients.
> 
> Dave




More information about the questions mailing list