Re: [time-nuts] Google public NTP service

Esa Heikkinen wrote: > > Only Google may be stupid enough to grow one second lasting minor timing > issue to ten hours lasting serious timing issue with even longer effects Not only Google... https://pairlist6.pair.net/pipermail/leapsecs/2016-September/006291.html Tony. --

Re: [time-nuts] Google public NTP service

On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 12:14 PM, Gary E. Miller wrote: > Yo Michael! > > On Wed, 30 Nov 2016 14:21:39 + > Michael Rothwell wrote: > > > ... was just announced. > > https://cloudplatform.googleblog.com/2016/11/making- >

Re: [time-nuts] Google public NTP service

tn1...@nic.fi said: > I wonder what this stupid "leap smear" will do to NTP driftfiles. ... There was a report on that area mentioned here a while ago. As long as the smearing is slow enough, the client servers easily track the drift. There is a bump in their drift, but it's not a problem for

Re: [time-nuts] Google public NTP service

Michael Rothwell kirjoitti: ... was just announced. https://cloudplatform.googleblog.com/2016/11/making-every-leap-second-count-with-our-new-public-NTP-servers.html?m=1 I wonder what this stupid "leap smear" will do to NTP driftfiles. Only Google may be stupid enough to grow one second

Re: [time-nuts] Google public NTP service

On 11/30/2016 3:35 PM, Gary E. Miller wrote: > Not true. NTP has provision for arbitrrary extensions to an ntp packet. > > See RFC 5905. https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc5905.txt section 7.3: HA! ntp (the implementation) doesn't follow the RFC, which says that ntp (the protocol) is supposed to

Re: [time-nuts] Google public NTP service

Yo Tom! On Wed, 30 Nov 2016 13:06:06 -0800 "Tom Van Baak" wrote: > From Gary Miller: > > You gotta start sometime. Now is a good time. This is not the > > first time Google has done this, and certainly will not be the > > last. It had bad consequences last time and they

Re: [time-nuts] Google public NTP service

Yo Poul-Henning! On Wed, 30 Nov 2016 21:01:44 + "Poul-Henning Kamp" wrote: > > In message <20161130125857.7229b...@spidey.rellim.com>, "Gary E. > Miller" writes : > > >Not 'odd'. Fully specified in the RFC. Anyone that did not > >implement the spec gets what

Re: [time-nuts] Google public NTP service

>From Gary Miller: > You gotta start sometime. Now is a good time. This is not the first > time Google has done this, and certainly will not be the last. It had > bad consequences last time and they did not learn from that. This is not the fault of google. The big players will continue to

Re: [time-nuts] Google public NTP service

Yo Bob! On Wed, 30 Nov 2016 15:42:58 -0500 Bob Camp wrote: > I believe the point was: If you start tossing around packets that are > odd sized, it is likely to break a lot of existing code. Not 'odd'. Fully specified in the RFC. Anyone that did not implement the spec gets what

Re: [time-nuts] Google public NTP service

On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 2:21 PM, Michael Rothwell wrote: > ... was just announced. > https://cloudplatform.googleblog.com/2016/11/making-every-leap-second-count-with-our-new-public-NTP-servers.html?m=1 Obvious outcome is obvious. Leap smear prevented faults between google

Re: [time-nuts] Google public NTP service

Yo Poul-Henning! On Wed, 30 Nov 2016 20:42:17 + "Poul-Henning Kamp" wrote: > > In message <20161130123506.63853...@spidey.rellim.com>, "Gary E. > Miller" writes : > > >Not true. NTP has provision for arbitrrary extensions to an ntp > >packet. > > Good luck

Re: [time-nuts] Google public NTP service

Hi I believe the point was: If you start tossing around packets that are odd sized, it is likely to break a lot of existing code. Bob > On Nov 30, 2016, at 3:35 PM, Gary E. Miller wrote: > > Yo Poul-Henning! > > On Wed, 30 Nov 2016 20:31:09 + > "Poul-Henning Kamp"

Re: [time-nuts] Google public NTP service

In message <20161130123506.63853...@spidey.rellim.com>, "Gary E. Miller" writes : >Not true. NTP has provision for arbitrrary extensions to an ntp packet. Good luck getting that through firewalls after the lastest rounds of NTP amplification attacks... -- Poul-Henning Kamp |

Re: [time-nuts] Google public NTP service

Yo Poul-Henning! On Wed, 30 Nov 2016 20:31:09 + "Poul-Henning Kamp" wrote: > > In message , Bob Camp > writes: > > >> I would support an RFC to mark the type a time an chimer is > >> servings. Not only smeared and

Re: [time-nuts] Google public NTP service

Yo Bob! On Wed, 30 Nov 2016 15:26:34 -0500 Bob Camp wrote: > > I would support an RFC to mark the type a time an chimer is > > servings. Not only smeared and UTC, but also TAI, UT, UT0, UT1, > > UT2, ET, TDT, TDB, TT, TCG, TCB, GPS, etc… > > > That would probably be a good

Re: [time-nuts] Google public NTP service

In message , Bob Camp writes: >> I would support an RFC to mark the type a time an chimer is servings. >> Not only smeared and UTC, but also TAI, UT, UT0, UT1, UT2, ET, TDT, TDB, >> TT, TCG, TCB, GPS, etc… > >That would probably be a good

Re: [time-nuts] Google public NTP service

Hi > On Nov 30, 2016, at 3:14 PM, Gary E. Miller wrote: > > Yo Michael! > > On Wed, 30 Nov 2016 14:21:39 + > Michael Rothwell wrote: > >> ... was just announced. >>

Re: [time-nuts] Google public NTP service

Yo Michael! On Wed, 30 Nov 2016 14:21:39 + Michael Rothwell wrote: > ... was just announced. > https://cloudplatform.googleblog.com/2016/11/making-every-leap-second-count-with-our-new-public-NTP-servers.html?m=1 I sort of see where they are coming from, but this will

Re: [time-nuts] Google public NTP service

In message <706C789A8B5440B3911A8A02C93E3E54@Alta>, "David J Taylor" writes: >Hope it doesn't mess up too many folk. It's completely against the >recommendations, of course. But in difference from these, it actually works. Trust me, they'll get thousands of users... -- Poul-Henning

Re: [time-nuts] Google public NTP service

Subject: [time-nuts] Google public NTP service ... was just announced. https://cloudplatform.googleblog.com/2016/11/making-every-leap-second-count-with-our-new-public-NTP-servers.html?m=1 ___ One "service" I will /not/ be using. Hope it doesn't mess