IETF Logo Mail Archive

[TICTOC] (no subject)

Hal Murray <hmurray@megapathdsl.net> Mon, 26 September 2016 19:28 UTC

Return-Path: <hmurray@megapathdsl.net>
X-Original-To: tictoc@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tictoc@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DEC612B00E for <tictoc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Sep 2016 12:28:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 4.731
X-Spam-Level: ****
X-Spam-Status: No, score=4.731 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR=1.951, MISSING_SUBJECT=1.799, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.982] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zeTb0NbqQDh6 for <tictoc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Sep 2016 12:28:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ip-64-139-1-69.sjc.megapath.net (ip-64-139-1-69.sjc.megapath.net [64.139.1.69]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6CD94126FDC for <tictoc@ietf.org>; Mon, 26 Sep 2016 12:28:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from shuksan (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ip-64-139-1-69.sjc.megapath.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3DE10406060; Mon, 26 Sep 2016 12:28:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Mailer: exmh version 2.7.2 01/07/2005 with nmh-1.3
To: tictoc@ietf.org
From: Hal Murray <hmurray@megapathdsl.net>
ISubject: Re: [TICTOC] Mirja K?hlewind's Discuss on draft-ietf-tictoc-multi-path-synchronization-05: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
n-Reply-To: Message from tictoc-request@ietf.org of "Mon, 26 Sep 2016 12:00:16 PDT." <mailman.105.1474916416.29261.tictoc@ietf.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2016 12:28:47 -0700
Message-Id: <20160926192847.3DE10406060@ip-64-139-1-69.sjc.megapath.net>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tictoc/EHwzqIGr_REiKlDEtnlXXSrJIZw>
Cc: hmurray@megapathdsl.net
Subject: [TICTOC] (no subject)
X-BeenThere: tictoc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Timing over IP Connection and Transfer of Clock BOF <tictoc.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tictoc>, <mailto:tictoc-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tictoc/>
List-Post: <mailto:tictoc@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tictoc-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tictoc>, <mailto:tictoc-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2016 19:28:56 -0000

>> "Each NTP clock has a set of N IP addresses. The assumption is that
>>        the server information, including its multiple IP addresses is
>>        known to the NTP clients." >

> The base NTP protocol gets the time server addresses by configuration,  and
> thus the assumption seems reasonable. 

The configuration info on a client is unlikely to know about multiple IP 
Addresses on the servers it is using.



-- 
These are my opinions.  I hate spam.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email