Ronan Flood wrote: > At my workplace we're slipping in IPv6 on our NTP servers, and I've > been watching the traffic and checking out the clients which pop up, > to see if they hit any problems when unintentionally using IPv6 > instead of IPv4. > > Native-IPv6 and 6to4-tunnel clients seem OK, but I've found one client > using a Teredo tunnel (RFC 4380), and it looks like that is something > to be avoided: > > remote refid st t when poll reach delay offset jitter > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > +2001:630:1:101: .GPS. 1 u 621 1024 177 350.111 115.061 2.000 > -2001:630:1:102: .MSF. 1 u 617 1024 177 355.528 114.905 0.734 > -2001:630:1:103: .PPS. 1 u 631 1024 177 575.602 222.278 0.056 > +195.66.241.3 .PPS. 1 u 524 1024 377 22.724 -15.799 0.788 > *195.66.241.10 .IRIG. 1 u 753 1024 377 27.490 -15.864 0.775 > 127.127.1.0 .LOCL. 13 l 28 64 377 0.000 0.000 0.002 > > Being a UK client, using a Teredo server on the west coast of the US > probably doesn't help, but it could also be inherent latency in Teredo. >
You might ask why they have configured their NTP server to go to the west coast of the US in the first place, irrespective of Teredo since network wise it a much longer distance than say some other location in London. All tunnels will have additional delays being Teredo, VPN or something else. > "server -4" would be wise here :-/ > Only if the really need to go distances like this. Danny _______________________________________________ questions mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ntp.org/mailman/listinfo/questions
