Clark B. Wierda <cbwie...@gmail.com>:
> A few thoughts:
>
> If you need one time source, you can easily argue for two. If the
> suggested minimum is three for stability, you can argue for N+1.
Of course we need one time source, and by hypothesis we have one - in
the tesr farm case, the HAT on a pi. I'm not seeing how this implies
a need for a second.
> If I have a tower that can be damaged, a secondary site is easier to
> handle. You do not get true diversity and you are subject to interference,
> but you do get redundancy and resilience.
Right. But what I want to do is tackle head on the case where you're off-net
and need to be an *autonomous* time authority.
> You could always get a tin-god inspector who can make his beliefs stick,
> but good arguments based on policy usually win.
Don't get hung up on that detail. Go with the thought experiment.
--
<a href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/";>Eric S. Raymond</a>
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@ntpsec.org
http://lists.ntpsec.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
