On 26/01/11 09:19, Martin Pitt wrote: > Matt Zimmerman [2011-01-24 10:33 +0000]: >> Because of this, I don't think that the proposed change materially affects >> our ability to estimate the number of active Ubuntu machines based on >> ntp.ubuntu.com traffic, and it would seem to benefit end users by providing >> time servers which are topologically closer, redundant, etc. > We discussed that in the meeting yesterday with Xavier, and I > contacted the admin of pool.ntp.org (see his reply which just hit the > mailing list). The proposed patch keeps ntp.u.c. in the configuration, > and Bjorn also recommended doing this, which should give us the best > of both worlds. > > I'd still wait for James's opinion, but otherwise this sounds like an > improvement to me and I'm also in favor now.
What's the rationale for vendor.pool.ntp.org? Does that not create opportunities for vendor-based attacks, or statistical analysis, which we would rather avoid? I like the description of the service, it seems they are pursuing a credible strategy for delivering great and reliable and fast service levels. Mark -- technical-board mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/technical-board
