On 2024-05-02 22:20, Hal Murray via devel wrote:
I don't like adding a new top level (extra) to the config file syntax.
In general, I agree with you on that. I'd keep it under nts.
--
Richard
___
devel mailing list
devel@ntpsec.org
https://lists.ntp
Richard Laager said:
> Why two options that do the same thing?
Thanks for asking. I meant to say something about that.
I think the reason there are two is that I had a typo or such and couldn't get
>extra port < to work. After banging my head against the wall for a
while, I gave up and a
On Thu, 2 May 2024, Hal Murray via devel wrote:
Note that for AT&T, the normal case of an NTP client goes through NAT so
NTP isn't using port 123 and doesn't get blocked.
Many, if not most, NAT implementations avoid remapping "privileged" client
ports, on the theory that specific port numbe
On 2024-05-02 15:48, Hal Murray via devel wrote:
There are 2 new options for the config file:
nts port
extra port
They do the same thing. Pick one.
Why two options that do the same thing?
--
Richard
___
devel mailing list
devel@ntps
I've pushed the code for alternatives to port 123. It's working for me, but
could use more testing. You might hit a case I didn't consider.
There are 2 new options for the config file:
nts port
extra port
They do the same thing. Pick one.
There are two part
