Harlan Stenn <[email protected]> wrote: > Rob writes: >> Harlan Stenn <[email protected]> wrote: >> > Folks, >> > >> > I'm wondering if we should deprecate the -4 or -6 flags for the >> > "restrict" directive. >> > >> > Does anybody have a good reason why we should keep these around for the >> > 'restrict' case? >> >> I sure wonder why there are two restrict default lines. >> >> What happens when I use a single restrict line without -4 or -6? >> Will it apply to both -4 and -6? > > According to ntp_config.c:2478, yes, it applies to both lists. > > And then there is http://bugs.ntp.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2648 which still > needs some analysis.
And, again, the distributors should be provided with sensible default config files. The current Debian Wheezy version, which comes with ntp 4.2.6, has separate "restrict -4 default" and "restrict -6 default" lines, which lead to believe that this is required. When additional "restrict -4 source" and "restrict -6 source" lines are added, they do not work at all. -4 and -6 have to be omitted. It is confusing... Just as confusing as the fact that "pool" requires the "restrict nopeer" is to be lifted for the affected servers (making a "restrict source" required), even though the association with a pool member is a client-server association, not a peer assocation. _______________________________________________ questions mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/questions
