Replacing C

[Daniel Franke]

Yes, on top of our having mostly dropped symmetric and peer modes,
interleaved mode was never implemented correctly to begin with. It behaved
as though the time at which send() returns was the time when the packet
left the network card, which is an absurd misunderstanding of how OS
kernels work.

I'd someday like to bring back support for something similar to interleaved
mode, but run through extension fields, which would allow it to work in
client/server mode. The protocol machine would be the easy part; the hard
part would be speaking all the various platform-specific APIs for getting
hardware timestamps out of the NIC. We might content ourselves with making
it a Linux-only feature and cribbing code from linux-ptp.

On Jan 8, 2017 9:01 PM, "Hal Murray" <hmurray at megapathdsl.net> wrote:

>
> esr at thyrsus.com said:
> >> Didn't the support for that get removed? Or am
> >> I confusing it with something else?
> > I think you are, and no blame attaches.  What Hal is suggesting sounds a
> bit
> > like interleave mode and drivestamps.
>
> Thanks.  "interleave" is the keyword I was looking for.
>
> Google found:
>
> NTP Interleaved Modes
>   https://www.eecis.udel.edu/~mills/ntp/html/xleave.html
>
> Which says:
>   Interleaved mode can be used only in NTP symmetric and broadcast modes.
> (symmetric == peer)
>
> Looks like we have removed all that.
>
>
>
> --
> These are my opinions.  I hate spam.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> devel mailing list
> devel at ntpsec.org
> http://lists.ntpsec.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ntpsec.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20170108/faccbbad/attachment.html>