In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> S P Arif Sahari Wibowo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >On Wed, 28 Sep 2005, Per Hedeland wrote: >> I.e. if the address in question *is* bound to a socket, the >> bug will not occur - and the OP claimed that ntpd *did* have >> all the IP addresses bound (but I suspect he may be mistaken). > >You are correct. I misunderstood you. I thought you meant that >each address is not listed more than once. In fact, the >secondary IPs was not listed at all. Giving -L to the ntpd >indeed make it listen to all IPs. So indeed it may work with my >original setup?
Yes. Actually I'm running that very version of ntpd in a commercial product, using -L to get it to serve time on a "virtual" IP address for a purpose very similar to what you wanted. But while it makes sense in that particular context, I'm not sure it does in a general NTP server/service setup (the product in question has nothing to do with NTP, it's just an "internal" function there). >Is there any cost associated on listening to secondary / virtual >IPs? Not significant in "normal" cases I'd say, and whether they're secondary / virtual or not is irrelevant. I think part of the "controversy" around this arose due to people running ntpd on web servers that had a gazillion "virtual" IP addresses for "virtual hosting", and having no interest in having ntpd listen on all of those. Watching for packets on a gazillion sockets does have performance and general resource consumption significance, in fact on some platforms ntpd might get into serious trouble by trying. --Per Hedeland [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ questions mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ntp.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/questions
