[ntp:questions] ***SPAM*** Re: Bad NTP servers jeopardizing the pool.ntp.org initiative
mayer at ntp.isc.org
Mon Mar 26 03:48:00 UTC 2007
Harlan Stenn wrote:
> H> I like the concept of the pool/exclude lines, I do not (at this time)
> H> like this particular implementation (pool/exclude lines).
> D> Not to worry, nothing's been implemented.
> OK, perhaps I should have said I don't like this particlular design.
> I would prefer something where, for example, in the case where we are
> using a 'name' as opposed to an address that we:
> - figure out how many addresses/name we want to use.
> - if an address does/has not 'associated' within X seconds, we
> re-resolve and start the cycle over again.
It was just a suggestion. It's the reverse of the restrict statement.
The other part about not resolving I intend to implement anyway, but the
exclude feature was intended to remove the address(es) from the possible
addresses to be used in the first place. Why try something that you
don't want. In any case, if I understand this correctly, you can get a
response but not what you want.
You don't want to re-resolve anything unless you use up all the
addresses you've already retrieved. We don't do this today and I intend
More information about the questions