On Wed, 14 Sep 2005, Heiko Gerstung wrote: > Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2005 08:06:52 +0200 > From: Heiko Gerstung <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: Tim Shoppa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [time] hanging together, or hanging separately > Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Tim Shoppa wrote: > > Heiko Gerstung <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 09/13/05 3:59 AM wrote: > >>I could think of implementing some mechanics in the NTP > >>implementations to specify a "minimum interval" which > >>basically says "only reply to a request if the last one > >>from that IP took place more than x seconds". > > > > > > Problem with that simple algorithm is that many perfectly > > valid configurations of standard ntpd (like iburst) or ntpdate will launch 4 > > queries over a very short period of time (like a second). > > Ok, I guess it would be no problem to make an exception for iburst, > which should be the only one we would have to take care of AFAIK. There is also 'burst' (does a burst (as iburst) on every query) ; that works very well because the first packets clear the way for the rest through caches, switches, routers etc ; we use it to peer a couple stratum-2's in our org. I would love to see simple, strict rate controls, but there are legitimate reasons for a client to send a lot of packets. It seems you can only set simple, strict limits if there is also a mechanism to exclude certain hosts (friends) or situations (say, the first 100 packets). Yet another feature. > > Tim. > Heiko HPP ---------------------------------------------------------------- _ Henk P. Penning, Computer Systems Group R Uithof CGN-A232 _/ \_ Dept of Computer Science, Utrecht University T +31 30 253 4106 / \_/ \ Padualaan 14, 3584CH Utrecht, the Netherlands F +31 30 251 3791 \_/ \_/ http://www.cs.uu.nl/staff/henkp.html M [EMAIL PROTECTED] \_/ _______________________________________________ timekeepers mailing list [email protected] https://fortytwo.ch/mailman/cgi-bin/listinfo/timekeepers
