Mark: Heads up! Policy issue.
Hal Murray :
> dfoxfra...@gmail.com said:
> > One more reason I need to get my ACL language implemented and restrict needs
> > to die.
>
> If you kill restrict, we are taking a major step toward making ntp.conf file
> no longer compatible.
We are aware of this. D
On 7/5/16, Hal Murray wrote:
> The problem is that the ramp up on polling interval is happening on
> refclocks. Maybe only on PPS refclocks.
And the intended behavior is that refclocks should always stay at the
minimum polling interval? Okay, I'll keep that in mind as I hack. I'm
getting well en
dfoxfra...@gmail.com said:
> What exactly is the "polling tangle" you're referring to? I talked to Eric
> about this earlier today, and he mentioned something about the polling
> interval drifting to 1024 seconds on a consistently reachable server. But
> AFAIK, nothing has changed and that's alway
On 7/5/16, Hal Murray wrote:
> Please don't push any big changes until Eric and/or I get the polling tangle
> fixed.
I'm doing my work in a branch for the time being, so we can merge
later. Anyway, I've completely rewritten the receive() and
process_packet() functions but haven't touched anything
dfoxfra...@gmail.com said:
> The whole receive() function you're looking at is about to get blown away in
> my ntp_proto refactor. Can you hold off on touching it until next week?
Please don't push any big changes until Eric and/or I get the polling tangle
fixed.
dfoxfra...@gmail.com said:
>
Daniel Franke :
> On 7/5/16, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> > Hal's bug report reads like this:
> >
> > restrict nopeer kills using the pool command. (Try it.) The symptom is
> > that no slots ever show up in ntpq -p
> >
> > The nopeer restriction is intended to prevent attackers from
> >
On 7/5/16, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> Hal's bug report reads like this:
>
> restrict nopeer kills using the pool command. (Try it.) The symptom is
> that no slots ever show up in ntpq -p
>
> The nopeer restriction is intended to prevent attackers from
> pretending to be a peer and th
