On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 1:37 PM, Brian Inglis wrote:
> I hope that description is inaccurate, because of the additional
> delay and jitter added by passing twice through the front end.
>
It may not be the case now but that would be an enormous error on the part
of the authors. Well designed loa
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 1:42 PM, Terje Mathisen
wrote:
>
> Huh?
>
> I'd rather expect the current trends to continue, with more and more gear
starting to use (often very bad subsets of) the ntp protocol for time sync.
The fastest growing device (and for many many people the only) segment is
mobil
Paul G wrote:
(I inadvertently sent this only to Terje Mathisen)
On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 12:07 AM, Danny Mayer wrote:
What do you mean by load-balancing? NTP cannot be load-balanced.
Of course it can (at some cost).
Obviously. As I noted plain ntp client requests, without signatures or
any
On 2014-03-24 08:53, Paul wrote:
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 12:26 AM, Danny Mayer wrote:
That's a misconception. While I trust Richard Schmidt in what he says,
that's is not what you think he says.
It's hard to misinterpret "590SG load balancers" and :
"It is the load balancer's duty to assig
On 03/24/2014 04:58 PM, Paul wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 11:18 AM, Jan Ceuleers
> mailto:jan.ceule...@computer.org>> wrote:
>
> But I wonder what an active "connection" is in this context, since NTP
> sits atop UDP.
>
> These are IP based not TCP/IP.
So there's even less of a notion
On 23.03.2014 03:24, questions-requ...@lists.ntp.org digested:
> From: Daniel Quick
>
> Do we want a Netspeed setting that assists with taking the load off
> some of the more heavily, higher-speed servers? or do we want to keep
> a setting where we serve fewer clients with the highest resolution
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 12:08 PM, wrote:
>
> The Certichron DNS servers got a DDoS attack against them. We apologize -
> please use the native time server addresses until they are replaced later
> this week.
>
Please tell us it was an NTP amplification attack.
Is your web problem related to thi
On Saturday, February 22, 2014 9:19:51 AM UTC-8, Brian Inglis wrote:
> Anyone know why USTiming.org and Certichron sites have been down for the last
> week?
>
> Nothing relevant mentioned on Google or any lists.
>
> Wondered if they might have been blocked as a reflector of recent DDoS
> attack
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 11:18 AM, Jan Ceuleers wrote:
> But I wonder what an active "connection" is in this context, since NTP
> sits atop UDP.
These are IP based not TCP/IP.
> Do the load balancers track whether an association has
> been mobilised
They could although the packet inspection c
On 03/24/2014 03:53 PM, Paul wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 12:26 AM, Danny Mayer wrote:
>
>> That's a misconception. While I trust Richard Schmidt in what he says,
>> that's is not what you think he says.
>>
>
> It's hard to misinterpret "590SG load balancers" and :
>
> "It is the load balan
(I inadvertently sent this only to Terje Mathisen)
On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 12:07 AM, Danny Mayer wrote:
> What do you mean by load-balancing? NTP cannot be load-balanced.
Of course it can (at some cost).
On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 3:43 AM, Terje Mathisen wrote:
> You really do NOT want load-balanci
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 12:26 AM, Danny Mayer wrote:
> That's a misconception. While I trust Richard Schmidt in what he says,
> that's is not what you think he says.
>
It's hard to misinterpret "590SG load balancers" and :
"It is the load balancer's duty to assign each incoming NTP request to o
Magnus,
In article <532fa47b.7060...@rubidium.dyndns.org>, Magnus Danielson
wrote:
> Joe,
>
> On 23/03/14 23:20, Joe Gwinn wrote:
> > Magnus,
> >
> > In article <532e45db.5000...@rubidium.dyndns.org>, Magnus Danielson
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Joe,
> >>
> >> On 21/03/14 17:04, Joe Gwinn wrote:
> > [
13 matches
Mail list logo
