Re: [TICTOC] [ntpwg] Antw: operational experience with NTP symmetric mode
Hal Murray <hmurray@megapathdsl.net> Mon, 09 May 2016 07:33 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 03BAE12D0B3 for <tictoc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 May 2016 00:33:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.033
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.033 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR=1.951, 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 b3CsvjMP4Rd2 for <tictoc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 May 2016 00:33:38 -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 D020E12D0A6 for <tictoc@ietf.org>; Mon, 9 May 2016 00:33:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from shuksan (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ip-64-139-1-69.sjc.megapath.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E14F0406061; Mon, 9 May 2016 00:33:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Mailer: exmh version 2.7.2 01/07/2005 with nmh-1.3
To: Ulrich Windl <Ulrich.Windl@rz.uni-regensburg.de>
From: Hal Murray <hmurray@megapathdsl.net>
In-Reply-To: Message from "Ulrich Windl" <Ulrich.Windl@rz.uni-regensburg.de> of "Mon, 09 May 2016 08:44:28 +0200." <57304DEC020000A100021281@gwsmtp1.uni-regensburg.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 09 May 2016 00:33:37 -0700
Message-Id: <20160509073337.E14F0406061@ip-64-139-1-69.sjc.megapath.net>
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tictoc/jbK00EnZvcUc_YKB2ldQrV0UwMU>
Cc: goldbe@cs.bu.edu, ntpwg@lists.ntp.org, hmurray@megapathdsl.net, "tictoc@ietf.org" <tictoc@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [TICTOC] [ntpwg] Antw: operational experience with NTP symmetric mode
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, 09 May 2016 07:33:40 -0000
Ulrich.Windl@rz.uni-regensburg.de said: > We used peering about as long as we used NTP (since 1993 or so). > Unfortunately the latest NTP release broke NTP peering with authentication > (bug 3001), so we turned it off until the issue is fixed. Did you turn off peering or authentication? Peering seems natural for the case where you have 2 equal servers and you want them to keep an eye on each other. Aside from reducing the number of packets by a factor of 2, are there any reasons for using peer rather than server? Is there any extra information exchanged? -- These are my opinions. I hate spam.
- Re: [TICTOC] [ntpwg] Antw: operational experience… Hal Murray
- [TICTOC] Antw: Re: [ntpwg] Antw: operational expe… Ulrich Windl
- Re: [TICTOC] [ntpwg] Antw: operational experience… Miroslav Lichvar