On 2017-02-03, Jakob Bohm <jb-use...@wisemo.com> wrote: > On 03/02/2017 04:15, Robert Scott wrote: >> When the two LI bits come back as 11 (clocks not synchronized) I have >> been treating that as a fatal error for that server. I ignore that >> packet and do not attempt to retry my query for that server. However >> I have found that LI=11 is not all that uncommon for servers from the >> pool. Is my response to LI=11 the correct one? Should I discard the >> response and should I write off that server for retries? So far, the >> only reason I might retry a server is if my recvfrom() socket call >> times out. >> > > I suspect this is the expected response from a time server which has > recently booted and has not yet synchronized itself, probably combined > with stratum=15 or more. But I haven't double checked this against > code or RFCs.
Another reason for the "unsynchronized" leap bits might be a recent step of the system clock. If the clock is unstable, ntpd may need to step the clock often (after reaching the threshold of 128ms). I think I've seen some servers in the pool that behaved like that. -- Miroslav Lichvar _______________________________________________ questions mailing list questions@lists.ntp.org http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/questions
