"nemo_outis" <a...@xyz.com> writes: > "Richard B. Gilbert" <rgilber...@comcast.net> wrote in > news:poydnd1spod4pbtxnz2dnuvz_vudn...@giganews.com: > >> I still haven't seen any argument that supporting a value greater than >> 500 PPM is worth the trouble! > > I still haven't seen any evidence that there is much trouble - only > anticipatory speculative whinging.
Think about the existing kernel implementations! > > Nor, for that matter, has there been much other than speculation and vague > anecdotal recollections that the 500 ppm limit *may* have had some > justification and not been entirely arbitrary. Let's do it like IPv6: With NTPv6 lets move to 128bit timestamps. Then you'll get your 96 bits worth frequency error. The a few people will surely complain why somebody chose that arbitrary limit ;-) > > This doesn't inspire much confdence about the documentation of the > architecture and design decisions regarding ntp. > > Regards, _______________________________________________ questions mailing list questions@lists.ntp.org https://lists.ntp.org/mailman/listinfo/questions
