Yo Hal! On Wed, 03 Apr 2019 04:19:08 -0700 Hal Murray via devel <devel@ntpsec.org> wrote:
> > Most of the thread was about trying all the possible IPv4 and IPv6
> > addresses returned for the NTPD server until one worked. So
> > assuming IPv4 for the NTPD when the NTS-KE is IPv4 is not what the
> > WG expects.
>
> I didn't see any consensus that we have to implement all possible
> combinations, but rather that the protocol has enough options to
> implement any combinations that make sense and probably many that
> aren't interesting.
Of course, but my idea of interesting is unlike yours...
> As Richard suggested, if we wanted to implement NTS-KE on -4 and NTP
> on -6, the syntax would be to add a -4 or -6 between ask/request and
> the name/address. I don't see any reason to implement the
> ask/request options yet.
Don't let the far future block the present. I need -4 and -6 for the
NTP side of an NTS connection to do testing. And long term I would want
-4 and -6 independent of ask/require.
Why? Well, my IPv6 connections have much less latency and jitter than
my IPv4 ones. Without -4 and -6 on the NTP part of NTS I can't make
those comparisons easily.
RGDS
GARY
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary E. Miller Rellim 109 NW Wilmington Ave., Suite E, Bend, OR 97703
g...@rellim.com Tel:+1 541 382 8588
Veritas liberabit vos. -- Quid est veritas?
"If you can’t measure it, you can’t improve it." - Lord Kelvin
pgpvYyr4U7_XH.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@ntpsec.org http://lists.ntpsec.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
