I'll try to explain why I do not think that covers it. In my case, the prefer peer (ntp1) is unreachable. Even if it were never discarded (I assume that's what the immunity idol means), my host1 and host2 should not use each other as synchronization source.
> Mitigation Rules > "As the selection algorithm scans the associations for selectable > candidates, the modem driver and local driver are segregated > for later, but only if not designated a prefer peer. If so > designated, a driver is included among the candidate population." Problem is, my prefer peer (to host1/host2) is neither a modem nor local driver. It is a genuine external source. > "If the prefer peer is among the survivors, it becomes the system > peer and its clock offset and jitter are inherited by the > corresponding system variables. Otherwise, the combining > algorithm computes these variables from the survivor population." The prefer peer indeed remains the synchronisation source, despite being unreachable (!). This is what I find buggy. > The minsane Option > "The minclock threshold Thanks, didn't use these options before. Maybe they will become handy at some time, but as far as I can see they will not mitigate my immediate problem. If I cut the LANs, I expect to have no survivors. Shouldn't my preferred peers have been eliminated as unfit due to no reachability in ntp_proto.c:peer_unfit() (TEST13) ? _______________________________________________ questions mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ntp.org/mailman/listinfo/questions
