[ntp:questions] Re: uk pool problem

Per Hedeland per at hedeland.org
Fri Sep 1 18:49:20 UTC 2006


In article <uj3js3-sv7.ln1 at gateway.py.meinberg.de> Martin Burnicki
<martin.burnicki at meinberg.de> writes:
>Ronan Flood wrote:
>> Harlan Stenn <stenn at ntp.isc.org> wrote:
>> 
>>> -d is covered, and while there may not be an exact duplicate there is a
>>> -d flag for ntpd and the sntp command has a way to query the time without
>>> setting it.  If there is a particular thing you need that is not covered
>>> open up an enhancement request.
>>>
>>> I have not looked at -u.
>> 
>> Perhaps rather than being retired, ntpdate should have the time-setting
>> code removed and be renamed something like ntpping, with -qu always set.
>> I for one find it a useful diagnostic tool in query-only and debug modes.
>
>Full ack. I very often use it for debugging and testing. The only thing I
>find deprecated is to use the way it has been used before the -g option had
>been introduced, namely to set the initial system time.
>
>I wouldn't even remove the capabiltiy to send requests via either a
>priviledged or an unpriviledged port. This is very useful to check whether
>there's some kind of firewall between the test system and the NTP server
>which only allows for unpreviledged ports and blocks priviledged, or
>vice-versa.

This would actually have to be an enhancement - when wanting to check if
the discussed server possibly used the source port to determine whether
to give a bogus answer, I found somewhat to my surprise that it's not
possible to have ntpdate use source port 123 without setting the clock.
A patch to make -u independent of -q and -d is trivial of course, but
where to send it?:-)

--Per Hedeland
per at hedeland.org




More information about the questions mailing list