Jonathan de Boyne Pollard <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>>> >>>> Anyway, most, if not, ALL of them have cheap routers that provide >>>> this functionally without additional cost. >>>> >>> I have a cheap router sitting by my left hand as I type this, and I'm >>> here to tell you that it doesn't contain an NTP server. There's very >>> little to be gained by adding an extra stratum solely for the sake of >>> dividing up the hops for the UDP/IP traffic, you know. And you're >>> missing the point that what you are talking about is merely yet >>> another form of external time server, not qualitatively different >>> from any other as far as the Windows Time Service is concerned. >>> >> No, no, no :) You're missing the point -:) >> >> Is not the same thing... Why having DC on the public when you can >> perform that job internally >> > That last sentence doesn't parse. But the response to the preceding > sentence is that it very much is the same thing. There's no qualitative > difference, as far as the Windows Time Service is concerned, between an > external time server on a machine somewhere in (say) Finland and an > external time server on a machine in the next room. Both are external > time servers, accessed via NTP/UDP/IP. So asking why people recommend > the one and not the other, when in fact people just talk about external > time servers in general without drawing such a distinction at all, is a > question based upon a false premise.
I can understand why someone would want to have an NTP service on a device on his network, like a router, and have it synchronized to a couple of time sources on the network. They could then sync all their Windows systems, or maybe even a single Windows system, off that NTP service. This will probably work better than having the Windows system directly sync off a single internet time source. _______________________________________________ questions mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/questions
