1 Machine, 2 NICs, 2 Instances of ntpd; Possible? - NTP

This is a discussion on 1 Machine, 2 NICs, 2 Instances of ntpd; Possible? - NTP ; Hello, I have a machine with two network interfaces. I need to have two instances of ntpd running, one for each interface. Initially I attempted to partition the two by restricting all access from network B to ntpd instance A ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: 1 Machine, 2 NICs, 2 Instances of ntpd; Possible?

  1. 1 Machine, 2 NICs, 2 Instances of ntpd; Possible?


    Hello,

    I have a machine with two network interfaces. I need to have two
    instances of
    ntpd running, one for each interface. Initially I attempted to
    partition the two
    by restricting all access from network B to ntpd instance A and vice
    versa in
    their respective ntp.conf's. However, I soon discovered this wasn't
    going to
    work because both instances were binding on both interfaces, resulting
    in
    conflict.

    I tried to remedy this by installing NTP 4.2.4p4 and using the -I option
    to
    specify to which interface a particular ntpd instance should bind. With
    limited experimentation, I seem to be running into the same problem of
    each
    instance receiving packets from both networks.

    Is what I am trying to do feasible?

    Cheers

    Johnny

  2. Re: 1 Machine, 2 NICs, 2 Instances of ntpd; Possible?

    Johnson, John-P63914 wrote:
    > Hello,
    >
    > I have a machine with two network interfaces. I need to have two
    > instances of
    > ntpd running, one for each interface.


    What problem are you trying to solve?

    There is only ONE system clock and only one copy of ntpd can discipline
    that clock.


  3. Re: 1 Machine, 2 NICs, 2 Instances of ntpd;Possible?

    Johnson, John-P63914 wrote:
    > Hello,
    >
    > I have a machine with two network interfaces. I need to have two
    > instances of ntpd running, one for each interface.


    Why would you want that? What problem are you trying solve? You
    shouldn't be doing this.

    > Initially I attempted to partition the two by restricting all access
    > from network B to ntpd instance A and vice versa in their respective
    > ntp.conf's. However, I soon discovered this wasn't going to work
    > because both instances were binding on both interfaces, resulting in
    > conflict.
    >


    Correct that's by design. However see bug #983 and #984 for some changes
    that I have made. It's currently being held up by a syntax question.

    > I tried to remedy this by installing NTP 4.2.4p4 and using the -I
    > option to specify to which interface a particular ntpd instance
    > should bind. With limited experimentation, I seem to be running into
    > the same problem of each instance receiving packets from both
    > networks.
    >


    Right. It's no different from before.

    > Is what I am trying to do feasible?
    >


    We don't know what you are trying to do since you haven't told us.

    Danny
    > Cheers
    >
    > Johnny


  4. Re: 1 Machine, 2 NICs, 2 Instances of ntpd; Possible?

    John.Johnson@gdc4s.com (Johnson, John-P63914) writes:


    >Hello,


    >I have a machine with two network interfaces. I need to have two
    >instances of


    But it has only one clock! Exactly what do you hope to accompplish?


    >ntpd running, one for each interface. Initially I attempted to


    ntp is for disciplinign clocks, not running on interfaCES

    >partition the two
    >by restricting all access from network B to ntpd instance A and vice
    >versa in
    >their respective ntp.conf's. However, I soon discovered this wasn't
    >going to
    >work because both instances were binding on both interfaces, resulting
    >in
    >conflict.


    >I tried to remedy this by installing NTP 4.2.4p4 and using the -I option
    >to
    >specify to which interface a particular ntpd instance should bind. With
    >limited experimentation, I seem to be running into the same problem of
    >each
    >instance receiving packets from both networks.


    >Is what I am trying to do feasible?


    So far it makes no sense to me.

    >Cheers


    >Johnny


+ Reply to Thread