On Thu, Nov 06, 2014 at 04:26:13PM -0800, Ask Bjørn Hansen wrote: > > > On Nov 6, 2014, at 05:01, Miroslav Lichvar <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Would it be ok if the clients used just the 2* name? I suspect this > > would generate too much of IPv6 traffic. > > I will reply to the rest of the thread later, but that would be fine. If your > client just needs one DNS lookup and then picks 4 servers from that, that's > reasonable, too.
To make sure I understand this correctly, if the client on start sent NTP requests to all eight addresses in a short interval, used the first four servers that responded and dropped the others, would that be still ok? Should be the order of addresses randomized in the client to not prefer IPv6? > I am planning to set a couple of dates within the next 6 months to enable > AAAA responses on more names. You mean the 0*, 1* and 3* names? Won't that cause problems on systems that for some reason have a global IPv6 address, but not a full IPv6 connectivity? The resolver may return an IPv6 address as first and ntpd configured with the server directive will not try the other addresses. I'm not sure if it's considered as a network misconfiguration, but I see it from time to time. The client has three IPv4 sources that are reachable and one IPv6 source that is unreachable. Adding -4 to the ntpd options fixes that. > If you have a vendor pool zone I can configure it to enable IPv6 on all the > names. I think for now we would want to keep it as it is. Thanks, -- Miroslav Lichvar _______________________________________________ pool mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/pool
