Jan Ceuleers wrote: > Wolfgang S. Rupprecht wrote: > > (I suggested that pool members with non-static IP addresses could be > accommodated by the pool). >
Well you shouldn't have. It just won't work for any useful time period. >>> And the protocol already exists: it's called dynamic DNS. >> Care to flesh out how you envision this working? > > The pool is essentially a fancy name server. Pool members could use the > existing dynamic DNS protocol to register their current IP address with > the pool. Perhaps in addition to registering with their regular dynamic > DNS provider, if they provide services other than NTP. > > Advantages: dynamic DNS clients exist for lots of platforms. Clients yes, servers no. The pool is a bunch of *servers* not clients so why are you talking about the clients? > Disadvantages: I don't know whether dynamic DNS servers are readily > available to be integrated with the rest of the pool server software. > Moreover, the pool would also need to use low TTL values (but then I > think it already is). > The only question would be if there are any *non*-dynamic DNS servers readily available but why ask the wrong question. > The other disadvantage is that pool clients might, for a limited period > of time, hammer whoever next receives the IP address previously held by > a pool server. Malevolant such inherintants of IP addresses might reduce > the perceived quality of the pool by telling the wrong time. > No, this isn't a limited length of time it's a long time, possibly months until it ceases and even then maybe not. You should not be guessing at the longevity of the provided IP address providing NTP service. Danny _______________________________________________ questions mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ntp.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/questions
