[ntp:questions] problem with pool directive?

Rob nomail at example.com
Mon Nov 10 23:14:10 UTC 2014


Paul <tik-tok at bodosom.net> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 2:55 PM, Rob <nomail at example.com> wrote:
>
>> Ok but why do I need to remove the "nopeer" and "noquery" restrictions
>> for a pool member?  This does not appear to be necessary for a "server".
>>
>
> Apparently restrict source was added a few years ago.  It applies to
> association creating objects and apparently the local host's routable
> addresses.  However you only need to remove nopeer.
>
>
>>
>> Or is there some implicit restrict line for a server that is not there
>> for a pool member?
>>
>
> The rationale for "restrict source" implies there might be.  I have no
> direct experience since I don't have that problem to solve.
>
>
>> (it was my impression that "noquery" limits status queries, not time
>> queries, and that "nopeer" is affecting only "peer" directives)
>>
>
> No.  Recall that "peer" is ambiguous and depends on context to disambiguate.

I added these lines:

restrict -4 source notrap nomodify noquery
restrict -6 source notrap nomodify noquery

There appears to be no difference, but I'll wait a while.



More information about the questions mailing list