On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 11:04:48AM +0000, Joe Holden wrote:
> On 24/02/2014 10:56, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> > In message <530b2500.5030...@rewt.org.uk>, Joe Holden writes:
> >
> >> Can I also suggest that ntp.org shouldn't be in the base either? :P
> >
> > I absolutely agree, but the replacement is less clear in that case.
> >
> >
> I'd suggest openntpd as a candidate as it would require less work than 
> dntpd since that has some kernel changes.
> At ~400K it is pretty lightweight and doesn't listen at all by default, 
> suitable as a default ntpd that just maintains time - one can always 
> install ntp.org from ports should they need more features (such as 
> access control and monlist, etc)

openntpd not able to authenticate the sources it is using and thus lack a big
ntp feature as a client.


Attachment: pgpvHtzhKeN_u.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply via email to