RE: [ntpwg] [dhcwg] Re: Network Time Protocol (NTP) OptionsforDHCPv6

Brad Knowles <brad@shub-internet.org> Wed, 28 November 2007 13:55 UTC

Return-path: <dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IxNNi-0006Tv-Gi; Wed, 28 Nov 2007 08:55:14 -0500
Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Ix5ZF-00056P-70 for dhcwg@ietf.org; Tue, 27 Nov 2007 13:53:57 -0500
Received: from smtp102.his.com ([216.194.225.125]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Ix5ZA-00078O-A9 for dhcwg@ietf.org; Tue, 27 Nov 2007 13:53:52 -0500
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp102.his.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F32D413E4286; Tue, 27 Nov 2007 13:53:51 -0500 (EST)
Received: from smtp102.his.com ([216.194.225.125]) by localhost (smtp102.his.com [216.194.225.125]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 15857-06; Tue, 27 Nov 2007 13:53:48 -0500 (EST)
Received: from vhost109.his.com (vhost109.his.com [216.194.225.101]) by smtp102.his.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B0FE413E42ED; Tue, 27 Nov 2007 13:53:48 -0500 (EST)
Received: from [192.168.1.101] (localhost.his.com [127.0.0.1]) by vhost109.his.com (8.13.1/8.12.3) with ESMTP id lARIrkEL018716; Tue, 27 Nov 2007 13:53:47 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from brad@shub-internet.org)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <p06240800c37214d60719@[192.168.1.101]>
In-Reply-To: <548EC156325C6340B2E85DF90CAE85860199F92F@E03MVB3-UKBR.domain1.systemhost. net>
References: <548EC156325C6340B2E85DF90CAE85860199F92F@E03MVB3-UKBR.domain1.systemhost. net>
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 12:42:21 -0600
To: <anthony.flavin@bt.com>, <brad@shub-internet.org>, <Mark_Andrews@isc.org>
From: Brad Knowles <brad@shub-internet.org>
Subject: RE: [ntpwg] [dhcwg] Re: Network Time Protocol (NTP) OptionsforDHCPv6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at smtp502.his.com
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.342 tagged_above=-99 required=5 tests=[ALL_TRUSTED=-1.8, AWL=0.057, BAYES_00=-2.599]
X-Spam-Score: -4.342
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: ea4ac80f790299f943f0a53be7e1a21a
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 08:55:11 -0500
Cc: mayer@ntp.isc.org, ntpwg@lists.ntp.org, mellon@fugue.com, dhcwg@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: dhcwg.ietf.org
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org

On 11/27/07, <anthony.flavin@bt.com> wrote:

>  Completely wrong.

My statement was with regards to most ISPs that I have experience 
with or or where we have had reports from others.

Your specific ISP was not necessarily included in that statement. 
Therefore, your single solitary counter-example does not necessarily 
disprove anything.

>  I can assure you that we do run our own NTP servers, and our customer
>  routers are pre-configured with a Name not an IP address to get to them.
>  We let our DNS servers sort out the load balancing issues (if we ever
>  get any).

You're just one ISP.  You do not comprise the whole of all ISPs on the planet.

>  It's working fine, and several hundred-thousand clients can't be wrong!

And I personally worked at AOL (tens of millions of customers) and 
the largest ISP in Belgium (over a million customers), and I've 
consulted at other ISPs around the world.  We've also had reports 
regarding a number of other ISPs around the world.

Your one counter example does not disprove our experience.

-- 
Brad Knowles <brad@shub-internet.org>
LinkedIn Profile: <http://tinyurl.com/y8kpxu>

_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
dhcwg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg