On 2014-01-16, Greg Troxel <g...@ir.bbn.com> wrote: > Harlan Stenn <st...@ntp.org> writes: > >> William Unruh writes: >>> I do not mean the default in the config file, I mean the default if >>> there is no config file or if nothing is set in the config file. >> >> Then ntpd won't connect to anything and there will be no data to report. > > This is a ridiculous strawman. The ntp project is abdicating its > responsibility to provide sane default behavior by claiming that no > default behavior can make everyone happy and therefore it's not their > fault. The notion that OS packagers somehow have a better idea of usage > is also specious. > > Really, ntpd should, when run with a config file of only > > server 0.pool.ntp.org > server 1.pool.ntp.org > server 2.pool.ntp.org > > behave relatively sanely, including declining to respond to packets that > could be amplification attacks,
The majority use case for ntpd is to synchronize your clock to UTC (i.e. a leaf-node client). So an ntpd ought to have the following defaults: driftfile /path/to/ntp.drift pool pool.ntp.org iburst restrict -4 default kod notrap nomodify nopeer noquery restrict -6 default kod notrap nomodify nopeer noquery restrict 127.0.0.1 restrict ::1 This would enable the majority use case without the need for a configuration file. > while being usable as a s2/s3 to other nearby nodes. Operation as a LAN time server is probably a secondary use case. But the defaults listed above would also enable that usage. > This notion of good behavior under minimal config seems > really obvious to me, yet there is a huge resistance to it, with the > notion that every end user should invest the time to be an expert. This. -- Steve Kostecke <koste...@ntp.org> NTP Public Services Project - http://support.ntp.org/ _______________________________________________ questions mailing list questions@lists.ntp.org http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/questions
