>>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Danny Mayer) writes:
P> As you might have seen elsewhere I do agree that this is only a good P> idea under well defined circumstances, and I would now add that it is P> difficult to ascertain up-front whether these conditions are met (i.e. P> whether it would be desirable for a particular NTP server on a dynamic IP P> address to be admitted to the pool). Danny> There are *no* circumstances where this is a good idea. You *cannot* Danny> make use of a server that is constantly moving IP address. Even fixed Danny> IP addresses can be problematic in this environment since the clients Danny> don't requery for addresses after they come up and if someone decides Danny> to move the server elsewhere, they will never know about it. Danny, while you are right that one cannot expect to get useful NTP service from a moving IP address you are flat out wrong that all DHCP-assigned addresses fall in to this category. I think you have tunnel-vision in this case, and are being blind to some cases where obvious/known counter-examples exist. P> Please remember that I started this suggestion in the context of a P> discussion of code being added to ntpd that re-resolves server addresses P> in case of non-reachability. Such code, _if deployed on a critical mass P> of clients_ (i.e. optimistically, not for a good few years) would address P> your concern (while not completely removing it). Danny> We are not the only provider of NTP Clients or for that matter Danny> servers and unless they also make changes to also do this and have Danny> everyone upgrade the problem will remain. For most people/admins this Danny> is a set and forget item when they set up a system. Danny, from my POV you didn't even address Per's point, and his point seems perfectly valid to me. H _______________________________________________ questions mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ntp.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/questions
