On 2017-05-11 17:22, Richard Thomas wrote:
>> On May 10, 2017, at 10:07 AM, brian utterback wrote:
>> On 5/7/2017 7:22 PM, Richard Thomas wrote:
>>> While we’re on the topic of the ’ntpq -p’ display, the days of
>>> 80x24 screens are long since gone. How much work would it be to
>>> increase the
Sorry I wasn’t clear. I’m not talking about the refid. I’m concerned that the
leftmost field, “remote”, that holds the name or IP address of the server/peer,
is too short for a full IPv6 address, or for a full DNS name.
Rick
> On May 10, 2017, at 10:07 AM, brian utterback
On 5/7/2017 7:22 PM, Richard Thomas wrote:
> While we’re on the topic of the ’ntpq -p’ display, the days of 80x24 screens
> are long since gone. How much work would it be to increase the size of the
> first column of the output so that it had enough space for a full IPv6
> address?
The
On 2017-05-07 17:22, Richard Thomas wrote:
> On May 6, 2017, at 2:39 PM, David Woolley wrote:
>> On 06/05/17 22:24, Hans Mayer wrote:
>>> I always thought "refid" for command "ntpq -pn" shows the next
>>> upstream server for the remote server listed below "remote". But
>>> now I have my concerns.
While we’re on the topic of the ’ntpq -p’ display, the days of 80x24 screens
are long since gone. How much work would it be to increase the size of the
first column of the output so that it had enough space for a full IPv6 address?
Rick
On May 6, 2017, at 2:39 PM, David Woolley
