On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 03:59:37PM +0200, Miroslav Lichvar wrote:
> If it was acceptable to limit the support to a single interface, there
> could be a bindacqiface directive to bind the client sockets to a
> specific interface. Would this be sufficient for your users?
FWIW, with the latest code
Hi folks,
I work on the AWS Time Sync
(https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AWSEC2/latest/UserGuide/set-time.html) service. We
create a link-local IPv4 address (169.254.169.123) that can be used as a source
server for NTP daemons on EC2 instances. The future is IPv6, so we’re
evaluating all of the
On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 01:10:35PM +, Scott, Nathan wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> I work on the AWS Time Sync
> (https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AWSEC2/latest/UserGuide/set-time.html) service.
> We create a link-local IPv4 address (169.254.169.123) that can be used as a
> source server for NTP
On Thu, Jan 09, 2020 at 11:58:48AM +, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
> Now, is that a fundamental limitation, or is it something that might be
> supported? We have a number of clients that want to switch to chrony,
> but lack of IPv6LL is mostly a showstopper. I'm happy to try to dig into
> the code
Hi,
I was trying to use a IPv6 link-local address for the host running
chrony as a server. chronyc clearly shows that chronyd receives the
packets, but the clients (running ntpd) never receive a response.
Googling a bit, I stumbled on
