Question about internal 'private' servers

[Hans Mayer]

Sorry. It's of course from 0.at.pool.ntp.org till 3.at.pool.ntp.org


On 16.01.25 17:26, Hans Mayer wrote:
>
>
> Hi Dave,
>
> I am not sure if you understand how a pool is working. Or probably 
> it's me that I don't understand you ?
> If you define a pool like at.pool.ntp.org you get always 4 different 
> IP addresses and also a different set of IP adresses.
> Check it out with command "dig at.pool.ntp.org" several times.
>
> For example in AT there are 4 pools from 1.at.pool.ntp.org till 
> 4.at.pool.ntp.org
> So theoretically you could use the 4 from your country. ( in my case 
> AT is Austria )
> 2.at.pool.ntp.org is the only one which has IPv6 addresses too. So if 
> you have IPv6 too you should use a number "2" server.
> And the advantages of using a pool is the fact you get only really 
> working NTP server addresses and no dead ones.
> Therefore if you use some pools there is no need to change any DNS.
> In the pools you get hopefully only stratum 2 servers and higher. In 
> 99% good enough. If you want to use a stratum 1 you have to define it 
> as server. And the netiquette says, one should ask the operator if 
> it's allowed to use it.
>
> // Hans
>
> -- 
>
>
>
> On 16.01.25 17:04, Dave Hall via users wrote:
>> Hal,
>>
>> Some further updates and thoughts:
>>
>> Regarding the tos minclock config line:  I checked one of my systems 
>> that's still running Debian 11 and regular NTP.  This system was 
>> quite happy with only two servers. So my original 
>> two-maaster-server configuration was OK (but not great) until I 
>> upgraded to NTPSEC.  This is not a complaint - just me understanding 
>> how the problem crept in on me.
>>
>> Regarding the number of local masters:  I completely understand why 4 
>> is a realistic minimum.  Now that this has been pointed out to me I 
>> will plan to move back to 4 or more in the very near future.  Last 
>> night, due to other pressing issues, I just needed to get my clocks 
>> synchronized without thinking about (planning for) which additional 
>> hosts to use as masters.
>>
>> Regarding my question about using a local POOL, my idea is that I 
>> could change the pool membership via DNS without having to touch a 
>> config file on each system.  So a pool of 2 servers does seem 
>> pointless, but when I add 3 or 4 more it will be easy.
>>
>> -Dave
>>
>> --
>> Dave Hall
>> Binghamton University
>> kdhall at binghamton.edu
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 15, 2025 at 10:31 PM Hal Murray <halmurray at sonic.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>     > One last question:  What does it take to define a POOL?  Is it
>>     just a DNS
>>     > name that resolves to more than one IP, or is there something
>>     more?
>>
>>     The general idea is that there are many servers in the pool and
>>     there is
>>     some smarts behind the DNS server that will rotate through the
>>     servers to
>>     spread the load (maybe not equally) and will monitor the
>>     available servers
>>     and not use any that are not responding or have a clock that is
>>     way off
>>     (aka broken).
>>
>>     More info here:
>>     https://www.ntppool.org/en/
>>
>>     The client side will try again later when it wants more servers
>>     and toss
>>     out a server from the pool when it stops responding.
>>
>>     If you look in your log files, you will probably find lots of
>>     clutter.
>>
>>     In your case, with only 2 servers in the pool, I would use 2
>>     server lines
>>     rather than the pool.
>>
>>
>>     -- 
>>     These are my opinions.  I hate spam.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> users mailing list
>> users at ntpsec.org
>> https://lists.ntpsec.org/mailman/listinfo/users
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ntpsec.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20250116/c6d42234/attachment-0001.htm>