[ntp:questions] Re: "Listen on" semantics
stenn at ntp.isc.org
Wed Sep 20 22:21:46 UTC 2006
>>> In article <4511394d$0$4523$e4fe514c at news.xs4all.nl>, "Maarten Wiltink" <maarten at kittensandcats.net> writes:
Maarten> "Luc Pardon" <xntp at skopos.be> wrote in message
Maarten> news:45110BAE.8040106 at skopos.be... [...]
>> What I want is not so much two copies of ntpd as a separation between
>> client and server functionality.
>> The client should keep my clock on track. The server should tell all my
>> other systems what time it is.
As I understand it, that is not the ntp model, that is the timed model.
When peering, ntpd exchanges time packets with other ntpd processes on other
We can get close to what you want today - run ntpd on your peering/master
machines, and sntp on your client/leaf machines.
Maarten> Forget mentioning OpenNTP, folks here will crucify you for that
OpenBSD's OpenNTP was, as I recall (and IMO), originally a malignantly
broken SNTP implementation. The last time I checked, it was still
effectively an SNTP implementation, even though it was advertised as an NTP
I complain about what I consider to be "false advertising". I don't care
Maarten> Which is exactly why I want to express my moral support
Maarten> (from a safe distance). This would be a TREMENDOUSLY good idea.
Maarten> It's also not going to happen. NTP is never finished, it
Maarten> seems. Never any time for redesigns like this.
"Software isn't finished until the last user is dead".
And I'd be happy to see ntpd redesigned to be better. I will actively help
in the process, too.
I believe Dave will also be interested, and I also belive that Dave will
insist that the results of that effort be Robust; most of the time when I
have seen Dave complain about somebody's idea it was because the idea was a
good solution in a limited area, and behaved Badly under other conditions.
Put another way, volunteers would be welcome.
More information about the questions