On 1/3/2011 11:46 AM, Martin Burnicki wrote: >> >> It's not quite clear what Arul was trying to achieve, but it looks like >> he was trying to define a local refclock using both IPv4 and IPv6 >> terminology. It's easy to see how he may have come up with the ::1 >> address, since NTP is using what look like loopback addresses. All IPv4 >> 127.0.0.0/8 addresses map to IPv6 ::1. >> >> I don't know if ::127.127.1.0 (or ::7f7f:100) would work (I suppose it >> should, if NTP has full IPv6 support). > > Those "special" 127.127.x.y addresses are somewhat sorted out when parsing > the configuration options and treated in a special way. I'm not sure it > would work, and I'm not even sure if it would be expected to work. Dave > Mills, Dave Hart, and Danny, what's your opinion on using IPv6-style > addresses to specify refclocks?
I know that this is a really late response, but my intention is to replace the server line for refclocks with a refclock line with a number or a name (like NMEA) as the first argument. Then we can get rid of these IPv4-like addresses. They are not really addresses but it does seem to confuse a lot of people. Having a refclock line could also then be used to specify additional things like fudge. etc. on the same line and make it clear what it's referring to. Danny _______________________________________________ questions mailing list questions@lists.ntp.org http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/questions
