[ntp:questions] NTP on small 100% Linux LAN : reasonable access control policy ?
nomail at example.com
Tue Aug 3 09:09:31 UTC 2010
Kiss Gabor <kissg at ssg.ki.iif.hu> wrote:
> In article <slrni5fh3t.om8.nomail at xs8.xs4all.nl>,
> Rob <nomail at example.com> writes:
>>>> restrict default 127.0.0.1 mask 255.0.0.0
>> It should be: restrict 127.0.0.1 mask 255.0.0.0
> Do you mean "restrict 127.0.0.0 mask 255.0.0.0"? :)
> Several IP stack implementations refuse 1 bits on masked out positions.
Well that may be even better, and of course the mask can simply be
omitted. I was mainly pointing at the word "default" that appeared
in the line and it should not be there.
More information about the questions