NTP does not reply to IP addresses that start with 69 - NTP

This is a discussion on NTP does not reply to IP addresses that start with 69 - NTP ; I am running stratum-1 servers with NTP version 4.1.0. There are no restrictions in the NTP configuration and no restrictions in the firewall. Yet, when I receive NTP request, from version3, and with an IP address starting with 69, the ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 44

Thread: NTP does not reply to IP addresses that start with 69

  1. NTP does not reply to IP addresses that start with 69

    I am running stratum-1 servers with NTP version 4.1.0. There are no
    restrictions in the NTP configuration and no restrictions in the firewall.
    Yet, when I receive NTP request, from version3, and with an IP address
    starting with 69, the daemon does not reply to it. The server will reply to
    NTP packets with version4. The server appears to respond properly to all
    other subnets.
    Does anyone have any ideas why this happens?




  2. Re: NTP does not reply to IP addresses that start with 69

    Ray,

    >>> In article , "Ray" writes:


    Ray> I am running stratum-1 servers with NTP version 4.1.0. There are no
    Ray> restrictions in the NTP configuration and no restrictions in the
    Ray> firewall. Yet, when I receive NTP request, from version3, and with an
    Ray> IP address starting with 69, the daemon does not reply to it. The
    Ray> server will reply to NTP packets with version4. The server appears to
    Ray> respond properly to all other subnets. Does anyone have any ideas why
    Ray> this happens?

    Got any debug output from ntpd that shows it receiving/replying v4 but
    receiving/not replying to v3?

    --
    Harlan Stenn
    http://ntpforum.isc.org - be a member!

  3. Re: NTP does not reply to IP addresses that start with 69

    Harlan,

    Here are sample of the debug output, which include IP addresses that start
    with 69.
    This first sample gave no reply. I assume it is version 3.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    -------
    MCAST *****sendpkt(fd=6 dst=192.70.172.132, src=132.246.168.2, ttl=0,
    len=48)
    transmit: at 37 132.246.168.2->192.70.172.132 mode 4
    input_handler: if=2 fd=6 length 48 from d1cd2803 209.205.40.3
    receive: at 38 132.246.168.2<-209.205.40.3 restrict 00
    receive: at 38 132.246.168.2<-209.205.40.3 mode 3 code 2
    MCAST *****sendpkt(fd=6 dst=209.205.40.3, src=132.246.168.2, ttl=0, len=48)
    transmit: at 38 132.246.168.2->209.205.40.3 mode 4
    input_handler: if=2 fd=6 length 48 from 453fdb02 69.63.219.2
    receive: at 38 132.246.168.2<-69.63.219.2 restrict 00
    input_handler: if=2 fd=6 length 48 from d06f2383 208.111.35.131
    receive: at 38 132.246.168.2<-208.111.35.131 restrict 00
    receive: at 38 132.246.168.2<-208.111.35.131 mode 3 code 2
    MCAST *****sendpkt(fd=6 dst=208.111.35.131, src=132.246.168.2, ttl=0,
    len=48)
    transmit: at 38 132.246.168.2->208.111.35.131 mode 4
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    -

    This sample did reply in mode 4.
    -------------------------------------------------
    receive: at 182 132.246.168.2<-72.139.76.245 mode 3 code 2
    MCAST *****sendpkt(fd=6 dst=72.139.76.245, src=132.246.168.2, ttl=0,
    len=48)
    transmit: at 182 132.246.168.2->72.139.76.245 mode 4
    input_handler: if=2 fd=6 length 48 from 459c69c0 69.156.105.192
    receive: at 182 132.246.168.2<-69.156.105.192 restrict 00
    receive: at 182 132.246.168.2<-69.156.105.192 mode 3 code 2
    MCAST *****sendpkt(fd=6 dst=69.156.105.192, src=132.246.168.2, ttl=0,
    len=48)
    transmit: at 182 132.246.168.2->69.156.105.192 mode 4
    input_handler: if=2 fd=6 length 48 from 0426649b 4.38.100.155
    receive: at 183 132.246.168.2<-4.38.100.155 restrict 00
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    ----

    Does this make any sense to you?

    Thanks for your help,
    Ray
    ========================================

    "Harlan Stenn" wrote in message
    news:ywn9r6du8xop.fsf@ntp1.isc.org...
    > Ray,
    >
    > >>> In article , "Ray"

    writes:
    >
    > Ray> I am running stratum-1 servers with NTP version 4.1.0. There are no
    > Ray> restrictions in the NTP configuration and no restrictions in the
    > Ray> firewall. Yet, when I receive NTP request, from version3, and with

    an
    > Ray> IP address starting with 69, the daemon does not reply to it. The
    > Ray> server will reply to NTP packets with version4. The server appears to
    > Ray> respond properly to all other subnets. Does anyone have any ideas

    why
    > Ray> this happens?
    >
    > Got any debug output from ntpd that shows it receiving/replying v4 but
    > receiving/not replying to v3?
    >
    > --
    > Harlan Stenn
    > http://ntpforum.isc.org - be a member!




  4. Re: NTP does not reply to IP addresses that start with 69

    Ray,

    I don't know if Danny has any ideas, but I think we may need a higher level
    of debugging.
    --
    Harlan Stenn
    http://ntpforum.isc.org - be a member!

  5. Re: NTP does not reply to IP addresses that start with 69

    How do you know that the problem is specific to systems that have
    addresses that begin with 69? If you take the failing system in this
    debug and change nothing else but it's IP address, does it work okay?
    Do you have more than one system that is having this problem and they
    are all on the 69.*.*.* network? If so, do they have anything else in
    common? Different? What version of NTP is running on the clients that
    fail? On the ones that succeed?

    Brian Utterback

  6. Re: NTP does not reply to IP addresses that start with 69

    On Tue, 1 Apr 2008 12:44:17 -0400, "Ray" wrote:

    > input_handler: if=2 fd=6 length 48 from 453fdb02 69.63.219.2
    > receive: at 38 132.246.168.2<-69.63.219.2 restrict 00


    > receive: at 182 132.246.168.2<-69.156.105.192 restrict 00
    > receive: at 182 132.246.168.2<-69.156.105.192 mode 3 code 2
    > MCAST *****sendpkt(fd=6 dst=69.156.105.192, src=132.246.168.2, ttl=0,
    > len=48)
    > transmit: at 182 132.246.168.2->69.156.105.192 mode 4



    > > Ray> I am running stratum-1 servers with NTP version 4.1.0.


    Compare the above two client addresses in the output of
    "ntpdc -nc monlist 132.246.168.2" :

    remote address port local address count m ver drop last first

    69.63.219.2 353 132.246.168.2 99 3 3 0 18 6354

    69.156.105.192 2605 132.246.168.2 11 3 4 0 294 6309


    Then examine this piece of code in ntp-4.1.0/ntpd/ntp_proto.c receive() :

    if (!(SRCPORT(&rbufp->recv_srcadr) == NTP_PORT ||
    SRCPORT(&rbufp->recv_srcadr) >= IPPORT_RESERVED)) {
    sys_badlength++;
    return; /* invalid port */
    }

    QED. Time to upgrade to a later version ...

    --
    Ronan Flood

  7. Re: NTP does not reply to IP addresses that start with 69

    Guys,

    I was afraid this might happen. There is no such port check in the
    development branch, so somebody broke my rules not to change ntp_proto.c
    withhout my permission. The result not only breaks the specification, it
    disables symmetric active/active modes. Any check like this has to be
    mode dependent, so whoever made the change eithher doesn't believe the
    specification or doesn't understand symmetric modes or both.

    This is the main reason I object to changing the files I specifically
    reserve for my own paws, including ntp_proto.c, ntp_crypto.c,
    ntp_loopfilter.c and ntp-keygen.c, between development merges and I'm
    rather pissed off.

    Dave

    Ronan Flood wrote:
    > On Tue, 1 Apr 2008 12:44:17 -0400, "Ray" wrote:
    >
    >
    >>input_handler: if=2 fd=6 length 48 from 453fdb02 69.63.219.2
    >>receive: at 38 132.246.168.2<-69.63.219.2 restrict 00

    >
    >
    >>receive: at 182 132.246.168.2<-69.156.105.192 restrict 00
    >>receive: at 182 132.246.168.2<-69.156.105.192 mode 3 code 2
    >> MCAST *****sendpkt(fd=6 dst=69.156.105.192, src=132.246.168.2, ttl=0,
    >>len=48)
    >>transmit: at 182 132.246.168.2->69.156.105.192 mode 4

    >
    >
    >
    >>>Ray> I am running stratum-1 servers with NTP version 4.1.0.

    >
    >
    > Compare the above two client addresses in the output of
    > "ntpdc -nc monlist 132.246.168.2" :
    >
    > remote address port local address count m ver drop last first
    >
    > 69.63.219.2 353 132.246.168.2 99 3 3 0 18 6354
    >
    > 69.156.105.192 2605 132.246.168.2 11 3 4 0 294 6309
    >
    >
    > Then examine this piece of code in ntp-4.1.0/ntpd/ntp_proto.c receive() :
    >
    > if (!(SRCPORT(&rbufp->recv_srcadr) == NTP_PORT ||
    > SRCPORT(&rbufp->recv_srcadr) >= IPPORT_RESERVED)) {
    > sys_badlength++;
    > return; /* invalid port */
    > }
    >
    > QED. Time to upgrade to a later version ...
    >


  8. Re: NTP does not reply to IP addresses that start with 69

    "David L. Mills" wrote:

    > I was afraid this might happen. There is no such port check in the
    > development branch


    Relax, Dave: the original poster is running old code, version 4.1.0.
    This port check was removed in 2002.

    --
    Ronan Flood

  9. Re: NTP does not reply to IP addresses that start with 69

    On 2008-04-02, David L. Mills wrote:

    > I was afraid this might happen. There is no such port check in the
    > development branch, so somebody broke my rules not to change ntp_proto.c
    > withhout my permission. The result not only breaks the specification, it
    > disables symmetric active/active modes. Any check like this has to be
    > mode dependent, so whoever made the change eithher doesn't believe the
    > specification or doesn't understand symmetric modes or both.
    >
    > This is the main reason I object to changing the files I specifically
    > reserve for my own paws, including ntp_proto.c, ntp_crypto.c,
    > ntp_loopfilter.c and ntp-keygen.c, between development merges and I'm
    > rather pissed off.


    I don't see 'NTP_PORT' in ntp_proto.c in the current stable release:

    steve@stasis:/tmp/ntp-4.2.4p4/ntpd$ grep NTP_PORT ntp_proto.c
    steve@stasis:/tmp/ntp-4.2.4p4/ntpd$

    --
    Steve Kostecke
    NTP Public Services Project - http://support.ntp.org/

  10. Re: NTP does not reply to IP addresses that startwith 69

    Dave,

    4.1.0 was a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away. We don't care about
    that version any more. Anyone who wants help needs to upgrade to a more
    recent version.

    Danny

    David L. Mills wrote:
    > Guys,
    >
    > I was afraid this might happen. There is no such port check in the
    > development branch, so somebody broke my rules not to change ntp_proto.c
    > withhout my permission. The result not only breaks the specification, it
    > disables symmetric active/active modes. Any check like this has to be
    > mode dependent, so whoever made the change eithher doesn't believe the
    > specification or doesn't understand symmetric modes or both.
    >
    > This is the main reason I object to changing the files I specifically
    > reserve for my own paws, including ntp_proto.c, ntp_crypto.c,
    > ntp_loopfilter.c and ntp-keygen.c, between development merges and I'm
    > rather pissed off.
    >
    > Dave
    >
    > Ronan Flood wrote:
    >> On Tue, 1 Apr 2008 12:44:17 -0400, "Ray" wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>> input_handler: if=2 fd=6 length 48 from 453fdb02 69.63.219.2
    >>> receive: at 38 132.246.168.2<-69.63.219.2 restrict 00

    >>
    >>> receive: at 182 132.246.168.2<-69.156.105.192 restrict 00
    >>> receive: at 182 132.246.168.2<-69.156.105.192 mode 3 code 2
    >>> MCAST *****sendpkt(fd=6 dst=69.156.105.192, src=132.246.168.2, ttl=0,
    >>> len=48)
    >>> transmit: at 182 132.246.168.2->69.156.105.192 mode 4

    >>
    >>
    >>>> Ray> I am running stratum-1 servers with NTP version 4.1.0.

    >>
    >> Compare the above two client addresses in the output of
    >> "ntpdc -nc monlist 132.246.168.2" :
    >>
    >> remote address port local address count m ver drop last first
    >>
    >> 69.63.219.2 353 132.246.168.2 99 3 3 0 18 6354
    >>
    >> 69.156.105.192 2605 132.246.168.2 11 3 4 0 294 6309
    >>
    >>
    >> Then examine this piece of code in ntp-4.1.0/ntpd/ntp_proto.c receive() :
    >>
    >> if (!(SRCPORT(&rbufp->recv_srcadr) == NTP_PORT ||
    >> SRCPORT(&rbufp->recv_srcadr) >= IPPORT_RESERVED)) {
    >> sys_badlength++;
    >> return; /* invalid port */
    >> }
    >>
    >> QED. Time to upgrade to a later version ...
    >>

    >
    > _______________________________________________
    > questions mailing list
    > questions@lists.ntp.org
    > https://lists.ntp.org/mailman/listinfo/questions
    >


  11. Re: NTP does not reply to IP addresses that startwith 69

    mayer@ntp.isc.org (Danny Mayer) wrote:

    > 4.1.0 was a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away.


    "The code is out there."

    --
    Ronan Flood

  12. Re: NTP does not reply to IP addresses that start with 69

    mayer@ntp.isc.org (Danny Mayer) writes:

    >Dave,


    >4.1.0 was a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away. We don't care about
    >that version any more. Anyone who wants help needs to upgrade to a more
    >recent version.


    IF you knoww that this was a bug in a particular old version and that the
    new versions fix it, then this is good advice. Otherwise it looks like "Go
    away-- i will set you a sufficient number of useless tasks that you stop
    posting here."

    If someone knows that 4.1.0 screwed up all IPs with 69 at the start then
    this is a reasonable bit of advice. Or if it is the port that is being
    used, and not the "69" then pointing out that that is a bug in 4.1.0 which
    is now fixed is useful.



    >Danny


    >David L. Mills wrote:
    >> Guys,
    >>
    >> I was afraid this might happen. There is no such port check in the
    >> development branch, so somebody broke my rules not to change ntp_proto.c
    >> withhout my permission. The result not only breaks the specification, it
    >> disables symmetric active/active modes. Any check like this has to be
    >> mode dependent, so whoever made the change eithher doesn't believe the
    >> specification or doesn't understand symmetric modes or both.
    >>
    >> This is the main reason I object to changing the files I specifically
    >> reserve for my own paws, including ntp_proto.c, ntp_crypto.c,
    >> ntp_loopfilter.c and ntp-keygen.c, between development merges and I'm
    >> rather pissed off.
    >>
    >> Dave
    >>
    >> Ronan Flood wrote:
    >>> On Tue, 1 Apr 2008 12:44:17 -0400, "Ray" wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>> input_handler: if=2 fd=6 length 48 from 453fdb02 69.63.219.2
    >>>> receive: at 38 132.246.168.2<-69.63.219.2 restrict 00
    >>>
    >>>> receive: at 182 132.246.168.2<-69.156.105.192 restrict 00
    >>>> receive: at 182 132.246.168.2<-69.156.105.192 mode 3 code 2
    >>>> MCAST *****sendpkt(fd=6 dst=69.156.105.192, src=132.246.168.2, ttl=0,
    >>>> len=48)
    >>>> transmit: at 182 132.246.168.2->69.156.105.192 mode 4
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>> Ray> I am running stratum-1 servers with NTP version 4.1.0.
    >>>
    >>> Compare the above two client addresses in the output of
    >>> "ntpdc -nc monlist 132.246.168.2" :
    >>>
    >>> remote address port local address count m ver drop last first
    >>>
    >>> 69.63.219.2 353 132.246.168.2 99 3 3 0 18 6354
    >>>
    >>> 69.156.105.192 2605 132.246.168.2 11 3 4 0 294 6309
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Then examine this piece of code in ntp-4.1.0/ntpd/ntp_proto.c receive() :
    >>>
    >>> if (!(SRCPORT(&rbufp->recv_srcadr) == NTP_PORT ||
    >>> SRCPORT(&rbufp->recv_srcadr) >= IPPORT_RESERVED)) {
    >>> sys_badlength++;
    >>> return; /* invalid port */
    >>> }
    >>>
    >>> QED. Time to upgrade to a later version ...
    >>>

    >>
    >> _______________________________________________
    >> questions mailing list
    >> questions@lists.ntp.org
    >> https://lists.ntp.org/mailman/listinfo/questions
    >>


  13. Re: NTP does not reply to IP addresses that start with 69

    On 2008-04-02, Ronan Flood wrote:

    > mayer@ntp.isc.org (Danny Mayer) wrote:
    >
    >> 4.1.0 was a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away.

    >
    > "The code is out there."


    That NTP_PORT test appears to be present in ntp-4.1.0 but not in
    ntp-4.1.1. So it was obviously removed after it was discovered.

    A useful response to the OP's problem report would have been something
    along the lines of: "The NTP_PORT check should not be present in
    ../ntpd/ntp_proto.c. Please comment the check out and recompile ntpd."

    --
    Steve Kostecke
    NTP Public Services Project - http://support.ntp.org/

  14. Re: NTP does not reply to IP addresses that start with 69

    Ronan,

    You are right. The oldest version I have here is 4.1.2 circa July 2003
    and the port check had been removed. Also, my warning to not change
    ntp_proto.c without my permission was not in that version. So, nobody
    did anything wrong, just misguided. I just don't want somthing to leave
    here not in spec, and that port check has been illegal since 1992.

    The current NTPv4 ntent is that source port 123 is required only for
    symmetric modes. Previously it was required for all modes.

    Dave

    Ronan Flood wrote:
    > "David L. Mills" wrote:
    >
    >
    >>I was afraid this might happen. There is no such port check in the
    >>development branch

    >
    >
    > Relax, Dave: the original poster is running old code, version 4.1.0.
    > This port check was removed in 2002.
    >


  15. Re: NTP does not reply to IP addresses that start with 69

    Thanks to everyone who replied.
    I now know I have to update. So what is the last stable version?

    I just wanted to know how the daemon could be so selective to deny IP
    69.x.x.x

    Ray
    --------------------------------------
    "Ray" wrote in message
    news:fstop5$jo$1@nrc-news.nrc.ca...
    > Harlan,
    >
    > Here are sample of the debug output, which include IP addresses that start
    > with 69.
    > This first sample gave no reply. I assume it is version 3.
    > --------------------------------------------------------------------------

    --
    > -------
    > MCAST *****sendpkt(fd=6 dst=192.70.172.132, src=132.246.168.2, ttl=0,
    > len=48)
    > transmit: at 37 132.246.168.2->192.70.172.132 mode 4
    > input_handler: if=2 fd=6 length 48 from d1cd2803 209.205.40.3
    > receive: at 38 132.246.168.2<-209.205.40.3 restrict 00
    > receive: at 38 132.246.168.2<-209.205.40.3 mode 3 code 2
    > MCAST *****sendpkt(fd=6 dst=209.205.40.3, src=132.246.168.2, ttl=0,

    len=48)
    > transmit: at 38 132.246.168.2->209.205.40.3 mode 4
    > input_handler: if=2 fd=6 length 48 from 453fdb02 69.63.219.2
    > receive: at 38 132.246.168.2<-69.63.219.2 restrict 00
    > input_handler: if=2 fd=6 length 48 from d06f2383 208.111.35.131
    > receive: at 38 132.246.168.2<-208.111.35.131 restrict 00
    > receive: at 38 132.246.168.2<-208.111.35.131 mode 3 code 2
    > MCAST *****sendpkt(fd=6 dst=208.111.35.131, src=132.246.168.2, ttl=0,
    > len=48)
    > transmit: at 38 132.246.168.2->208.111.35.131 mode 4
    > --------------------------------------------------------------------------

    --
    > -
    >
    > This sample did reply in mode 4.
    > -------------------------------------------------
    > receive: at 182 132.246.168.2<-72.139.76.245 mode 3 code 2
    > MCAST *****sendpkt(fd=6 dst=72.139.76.245, src=132.246.168.2, ttl=0,
    > len=48)
    > transmit: at 182 132.246.168.2->72.139.76.245 mode 4
    > input_handler: if=2 fd=6 length 48 from 459c69c0 69.156.105.192
    > receive: at 182 132.246.168.2<-69.156.105.192 restrict 00
    > receive: at 182 132.246.168.2<-69.156.105.192 mode 3 code 2
    > MCAST *****sendpkt(fd=6 dst=69.156.105.192, src=132.246.168.2, ttl=0,
    > len=48)
    > transmit: at 182 132.246.168.2->69.156.105.192 mode 4
    > input_handler: if=2 fd=6 length 48 from 0426649b 4.38.100.155
    > receive: at 183 132.246.168.2<-4.38.100.155 restrict 00
    > --------------------------------------------------------------------------

    --
    > ----
    >
    > Does this make any sense to you?
    >
    > Thanks for your help,
    > Ray
    > ========================================
    >
    > "Harlan Stenn" wrote in message
    > news:ywn9r6du8xop.fsf@ntp1.isc.org...
    > > Ray,
    > >
    > > >>> In article , "Ray"


    > writes:
    > >
    > > Ray> I am running stratum-1 servers with NTP version 4.1.0. There are no
    > > Ray> restrictions in the NTP configuration and no restrictions in the
    > > Ray> firewall. Yet, when I receive NTP request, from version3, and with

    > an
    > > Ray> IP address starting with 69, the daemon does not reply to it. The
    > > Ray> server will reply to NTP packets with version4. The server appears

    to
    > > Ray> respond properly to all other subnets. Does anyone have any ideas

    > why
    > > Ray> this happens?
    > >
    > > Got any debug output from ntpd that shows it receiving/replying v4 but
    > > receiving/not replying to v3?
    > >
    > > --
    > > Harlan Stenn
    > > http://ntpforum.isc.org - be a member!

    >
    >




  16. Re: NTP does not reply to IP addresses that start with 69

    On 2008-04-03, Ray wrote:

    > I now know I have to update. So what is the last stable version?


    The current stable release is 4.2.4p4 2007/09/10

    Current version information is published at:

    http://www.ntp.org/
    http://support.ntp.org/
    http://support.ntp.org/rss/releases.xml (as an RSS feed)

    The download pages are:

    http://www.ntp.org/downloads.html
    http://support.ntp.org/download

    Current version information is available for inclusion on other
    web-pages in the following formats:

    HTML table: http://support.ntp.org/bin/view/Main...ble?skin=plain
    Unordered list: http://support.ntp.org/bin/view/Main...ist?skin=plain

    Please visit http://support.ntp.org/bin/view/Main...eNotifications
    for more information about NTP Release Notifications

    --
    Steve Kostecke
    NTP Public Services Project - http://support.ntp.org/

  17. Re: NTP does not reply to IP addresses that startwith 69

    Ray wrote:
    > Thanks to everyone who replied.
    > I now know I have to update. So what is the last stable version?
    >
    > I just wanted to know how the daemon could be so selective to deny IP
    > 69.x.x.x
    >
    > Ray


    It depends on what's in your config file. You may be restricting 69/8
    addresses.

    Danny

  18. Re: NTP does not reply to IP addresses that startwith 69

    Ronan Flood wrote:
    > mayer@ntp.isc.org (Danny Mayer) wrote:
    >
    >> 4.1.0 was a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away.

    >
    > "The code is out there."
    >


    That doesn't matter. We only support the current current unless there's
    a paid contract to maintain some other version. Dave was concerned about
    something that he wants to ensure control of but that's in the recent
    versions.

    Danny

  19. Re: NTP does not reply to IP addresses that start with 69

    Danny,

    Danny Mayer wrote:
    > Ronan Flood wrote:
    >> mayer@ntp.isc.org (Danny Mayer) wrote:
    >>
    >>> 4.1.0 was a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away.

    >>
    >> "The code is out there."
    >>

    >
    > That doesn't matter. We only support the current current unless there's
    > a paid contract to maintain some other version. Dave was concerned about
    > something that he wants to ensure control of but that's in the recent
    > versions.


    I don't think I've read a request where this should be fixed in an older
    version.

    The problem in this NG seems to be that some insiders seem to assume all
    users are running a very recent version of NTP, and I'm pretty sure this is
    not the case.

    I think most users run the version which comes with their OS or
    distribution, and stuck with it unless they stumble across a bug or
    limitation, in which case it's normally sufficient to point them to the
    latest version.

    Martin
    --
    Martin Burnicki

    Meinberg Funkuhren
    Bad Pyrmont
    Germany

  20. Re: NTP does not reply to IP addresses that start with 69

    Martin Burnicki wrote:
    []
    > I don't think I've read a request where this should be fixed in an
    > older version.
    >
    > The problem in this NG seems to be that some insiders seem to assume
    > all users are running a very recent version of NTP, and I'm pretty
    > sure this is not the case.
    >
    > I think most users run the version which comes with their OS or
    > distribution, and stuck with it unless they stumble across a bug or
    > limitation, in which case it's normally sufficient to point them to
    > the latest version.
    >
    > Martin


    On the general principle "If it works, leave it", I agree with their
    approach!

    David



+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast