[ntp:questions] Bad NTP servers jeopardizing the pool.ntp.org initiative
mayer at ntp.isc.org
Mon Apr 2 12:17:14 UTC 2007
David Woolley wrote:
> In article <878xdbquaj.fsf at arbol.wsrcc.com>,
> "Wolfgang S. Rupprech" <wolfgang.rupprecht+gnus200704 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> (ref http://www.pool.ntp.org/join.html) That comes out to ~5GByte per
>> month. I'm not sure my ISP will be that happy with me if I committed
>> to that high an added load. I would have much fewer worries if the
> For comparison, home users of ADSL on the main UK wholesale supplier
> are contended at a level that means that a monthly fair share of bandwidth
> is about 12GB, so 5GB is a significant amount of bandwidth.
All of this points to the fact that the NTP infrastructure needs work.
DNS is a well distributed infrastructure while NTP is not. We are
depending on just a few (relatively) NTP servers to provide time. Maybe
the real solution is to provide NTP service similar to DNS service.
>> The fastest way to break people of the habit of wiring in IP addresses
>> would be to only allow dynamic hosts into pools. Unless they use the
>> hostname as they are instructed to, they won't get any time service
>> after a while.
> I think home users should be discouraged from being in the pools, because,
> as well as easily using up a large part of their share of the access network
> bandwidth, they are going to be particularly prone to variable delays due
> to contention in the access network.
> ADSL in the UK (and I think more generally) is actually carried by an
> ATM packet switched network to the local exchange. ADSL peak rates
> far exceed an equal share of the bandwidth of the ATM network provided.
Which is yet another reason not to put something like this in the pool.
More information about the questions