Uh oh. I didn't know it was anything but some government service. Do you know any ntp servers which are less restrictive? I don't want to have bad dreams about stratum 1 servers. They sound a little scary.
On Sunday 15 December 2002 17:57, Rick Moen wrote: > Quoting Eric Nelson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > > Here is what I use in crontab: > > 59 * * * * /usr/sbin/ntpdate ntp-dec.usno.navy.mil >> /dev/null > > The hostname is a CNAME for usno.pa-x.dec.com, operated by Compaq > in Palo Alto for the U.S. Naval Observatory. It's a stratum 1 > server. Posted access policy is "Access Policy: open access for > stratum 2 servers, Compaq, others by arrangement." > (http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ntp.html) > > USNO states at the top of the listing at the top of the page: "All > of the following stratum 1 NTP servers are open to stratum 2 > servers within the same time zone and to others by arrangement." > > http://www.eecis.udel.edu/~mills/ntp/servers.html states: "Please > respect the access policy as stated by the responsible person. It > is very important that potential clients avoid use of servers not > listed as open access, unless approved first by the responsible > person. This especially includes indiscriminate use of servers not > listed in the list, since this can be disruptive. The responsible > person should always be notified upon establishment of regular > operations with servers listed as open access. Servers listed as > closed access should NOT be used without prior permission, since > this may disrupt ongoing activities in which these servers are > involved." > > That page clarifies about what is meant by a stratum 2 server: > "The secondary server provides synchronization to a sizable > population of other servers and clients on the order of 100 or > more." (There's more.) > > It is not unknown for members of the general public who sync to > statum 1 servers without prior arrangement to find their entire IP > blocks blocked by the statum 1 server operator. > > On the bright side, doing the sort of periodic ntpdate you discuss > is less likely to risk the wrath of a statum 1 server than would > running ntpd against it -- as I've seen people urge on other > mailing lists that I guess should go nameless. _______________________________________________ vox-tech mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.lugod.org/mailman/listinfo/vox-tech
