Guys,
So far as I know, the leapsecond code in the various Unices comes from
my humble fingers, so the ntpd/kernel behavior I say on these wires is
safe. However, I fear somebody else may have other fingers that might
implement the code and court disaster if lit by an NTP client.
Therefore, I have changed ntp-dev to (in the case only of the NIST
leapsecond table) to announce the leap only in the month of June and/or
December. I don't expect to live long enough for leap epoches to occur
more often than that.
Dave
David L. Mills wrote:
Greg,
My message you quote means precisely what it says, nothing more, nothing
less. While the leap warning bits happen to be set now per NIST leap
second table, the leap will not be executed until the time so carefully
spelled out in my message.
All NTP servers in range of the subnet carefully and purposely display
the leap warning. Those that use the NIST table will show it now until 1
January 2006. Those that derive it from a reference clock will show it
when the clock shows it. The leap will actually be implemented as
stated. The code was last verified using the WWV leap warning at the end
of 1998.
Dave
Greg Dowd wrote:
That would be a big problem if the ntp servers are broadcasting leap
warning now.
Message: 3
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 13:58:04 +0000
From: "David L. Mills" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: ntp servers reporting leap second
erroneously?
To: [email protected]
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Rex,
What makes you think this is a problem? The leap second display is
entirely and with emphasis purposeful. There is in fact a leap second
intended for the end of the year. The NTP servers will in fact show that
indication exactly as intended. On the last day of this year the kernel
of those compliant systems will be advised of the leap and those kernels
will implement it on the last second of the year. Those kernels that do
not implement the leap will observe the leap in 900 seconds and then
regain accurate synchronization. What is your problem?
Dave
Greg Dowd
gdowd at symmetricom dot com (antispam format)
Technologist, TT&M Div.
Symmetricom, Inc. www.symmetricom.com
"The current implementation is non-obvious and may need to be improved."
_______________________________________________
questions mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.ntp.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/questions
_______________________________________________
questions mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.ntp.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/questions
