Wolfgang S. Rupprecht wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Danny Mayer) writes: >> Which point would that be? Having NTP servers with varying addresses is >> a good idea? > > It appears to me that pools is on the verge of collapse from way too > high a load. There are only ~1000 pools servers right now. (ref: > http://www.pool.ntp.org/ right side bar.) The load on each server is > described as 5-15 packets per second for a data rate of 10-15kbit/sec. > (ref http://www.pool.ntp.org/join.html) That comes out to ~5GByte per > month. I'm not sure my ISP will be that happy with me if I committed > to that high an added load. I would have much fewer worries if the > load were 1/10th what it is. To do that pools has to expand to 10x > its current size. Opening pools to dynamic hosts would allow a > significantly larger pool of host to apply. > > (* (/ 15e3 8) 60 60 24 30) 4.86 GBytes / month >
I understand the load issue but that's not what's being discussed here. Trying to use something that would make the situation worse doesn't help. >> ... there are a lot of other NTP clients out there. We already have >> cases of people hardcoding IP addresses of NTP servers without >> unauthorization of the owner of the NTP server. > > The fastest way to break people of the habit of wiring in IP addresses > would be to only allow dynamic hosts into pools. Unless they use the > hostname as they are instructed to, they won't get any time service > after a while. > And as I keep saying, this is a set and forget situation. They set up their NTP service, makes sure it's working at that moment and move on and never go back to check. Danny _______________________________________________ questions mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ntp.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/questions
