[ntp:questions] Interface IP address Change.
kardel at ntp.org
Fri Jul 4 21:48:06 UTC 2008
Danny Mayer wrote:
> arne_woerner at yahoo.com wrote:
>> On Jun 30, 4:18 am, "kiran shirol" <kiran.shi... at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Instead of using a polling approach, would it not be better we use a
>>> notification model, where in whenever there
>> in my own ntp client implementation i "re-bind" to the server each
>> time i want to ask for his time.
>> i could think of an implementation that mixes both approaches
>> in case of a certain errno after a sendto() call, we re-bind, else we
>> remember that socket...
> Yes, we should consider whether or not we should rescan the interfaces
> when we get these kinds of errors so that ntpd can recover from a change
> in IP address. That's certainly a good idea. We'd need to have a check
> so that we don't rescan too frequently otherwise we'd be spending all of
> our time rescanning.
Well as we already detect changes of interface addresses reliably (but
not instantaneous on some platforms) there is no need to add more and
more measurement points to the code just to be worried about rate
limiting the scan process. We should rather focus to get the last major
platforms event enabled for interface changes. It is not all that hard.
More information about the questions