[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Danny Mayer) writes:
>Dave,
>4.1.0 was a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away. We don't care about
>that version any more. Anyone who wants help needs to upgrade to a more
>recent version.
IF you knoww that this was a bug in a particular old version and that the
new versions fix it, then this is good advice. Otherwise it looks like "Go
away-- i will set you a sufficient number of useless tasks that you stop
posting here."
If someone knows that 4.1.0 screwed up all IPs with 69 at the start then
this is a reasonable bit of advice. Or if it is the port that is being
used, and not the "69" then pointing out that that is a bug in 4.1.0 which
is now fixed is useful.
>Danny
>David L. Mills wrote:
>> Guys,
>>
>> I was afraid this might happen. There is no such port check in the
>> development branch, so somebody broke my rules not to change ntp_proto.c
>> withhout my permission. The result not only breaks the specification, it
>> disables symmetric active/active modes. Any check like this has to be
>> mode dependent, so whoever made the change eithher doesn't believe the
>> specification or doesn't understand symmetric modes or both.
>>
>> This is the main reason I object to changing the files I specifically
>> reserve for my own paws, including ntp_proto.c, ntp_crypto.c,
>> ntp_loopfilter.c and ntp-keygen.c, between development merges and I'm
>> rather pissed off.
>>
>> Dave
>>
>> Ronan Flood wrote:
>>> On Tue, 1 Apr 2008 12:44:17 -0400, "Ray" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> input_handler: if=2 fd=6 length 48 from 453fdb02 69.63.219.2
>>>> receive: at 38 132.246.168.2<-69.63.219.2 restrict 00
>>>
>>>> receive: at 182 132.246.168.2<-69.156.105.192 restrict 00
>>>> receive: at 182 132.246.168.2<-69.156.105.192 mode 3 code 2
>>>> MCAST *****sendpkt(fd=6 dst=69.156.105.192, src=132.246.168.2, ttl=0,
>>>> len=48)
>>>> transmit: at 182 132.246.168.2->69.156.105.192 mode 4
>>>
>>>
>>>>> Ray> I am running stratum-1 servers with NTP version 4.1.0.
>>>
>>> Compare the above two client addresses in the output of
>>> "ntpdc -nc monlist 132.246.168.2" :
>>>
>>> remote address port local address count m ver drop last first
>>>
>>> 69.63.219.2 353 132.246.168.2 99 3 3 0 18 6354
>>>
>>> 69.156.105.192 2605 132.246.168.2 11 3 4 0 294 6309
>>>
>>>
>>> Then examine this piece of code in ntp-4.1.0/ntpd/ntp_proto.c receive() :
>>>
>>> if (!(SRCPORT(&rbufp->recv_srcadr) == NTP_PORT ||
>>> SRCPORT(&rbufp->recv_srcadr) >= IPPORT_RESERVED)) {
>>> sys_badlength++;
>>> return; /* invalid port */
>>> }
>>>
>>> QED. Time to upgrade to a later version ...
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> questions mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> https://lists.ntp.org/mailman/listinfo/questions
>>
_______________________________________________
questions mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.ntp.org/mailman/listinfo/questions
