Re: Should we just remove the broadcast option?

devel@ntpsec.org said: > Your first 'graph is something I didn't know. I think it removes the > pressure to keep this feature. Go ahead and take it out, Hal. OK. I'll take it out of the parser in time for the release. Cleaning up the internals should wait until after the release. --

Re: Should we just remove the broadcast option?

Mark Atwood : > I think all modern Windows machines get their address from their domain > controller, or from ntp?.microsoft.com > > If its a snarl, Im tending towards removing it, and documenting it's > absence. Mark, it is kind of a snarl. Not so much the incremental

Re: Should we just remove the broadcast option?

On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 03:25:52AM +, Mark Atwood via devel wrote: > I think all modern Windows machines get their address from their domain > controller, or from ntp?.microsoft.com Per

Re: Should we just remove the broadcast option?

I think all modern Windows machines get their address from their domain controller, or from ntp?.microsoft.com If its a snarl, Im tending towards removing it, and documenting it's absence. On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 5:16 PM Eric S. Raymond via devel wrote: > Mark! Heads

Re: Should we just remove the broadcast option?

Mark! Heads up...exernal/marketing issue incoming. Hal Murray via devel : > Is anybody using/testing it? Not as far as I know > We don't support receiving broadcast. No, I removed that after Daniel explained that it's unsecurable. > It used to support a ttl option. That

Should we just remove the broadcast option?

Is anybody using/testing it? We don't support receiving broadcast. It used to support a ttl option. That got broken/dropped somewhere along the way. Should I restore that? Or maybe document that it is missing? ... Context is that I'm cleaning up the mode/ttl mess. The mode for refclocks