[189159] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: NIST NTP servers
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Spencer Ryan)
Mon May 9 23:17:08 2016
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <0E81961D-CCEB-4CA9-9D6B-327B3E253F52@beckman.org>
Date: Mon, 9 May 2016 23:09:33 -0400
From: Spencer Ryan <sryan@arbor.net>
To: Mel Beckman <mel@beckman.org>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
I would second the idea of using your own GPS appliance if possible.
On May 9, 2016 11:08 PM, "Mel Beckman" <mel@beckman.org> wrote:
> NTP has vulnerabilities that make it generally unsuitable for provider
> networks. I strongly recommend getting a GPS-based time server. These are
> as cheap as $300. Here is one I use quite a bit:
>
> http://www.amazon.com/TM1000A-GPS-Network-Time-Server/dp/B002RC3Q4Q
>
> You=E2=80=99ll have a stratum 1 clock on site. Hard to beat.
>
> -mel
>
> On May 9, 2016, at 8:01 PM, b f <freetexwatson@gmail.com<mailto:
> freetexwatson@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Hello List,
>
>
> In search of stable, disparate stratum 1 NTP sources.
>
> Looking for anyone=E2=80=99s advice/experiences (good/bad/ugly/weird) usi=
ng NIST=E2=80=99s
> NTP servers per: http://tf.nist.gov/tf-cgi/servers.cgi
>
> We tried using =E2=80=9Ctime.nist.gov<http://time.nist.gov>=E2=80=9D whic=
h returns
> varying round-robin addresses
> (as the link says), but Cisco IOS resolved the FQDN and embedded the
> numeric address in the =E2=80=9Cntp server=E2=80=9D config statement.
>
>
>
> After letting the new server config go through a few days of update cycle=
s,
> the drift, offset and reachability stats are not anywhere as good as what
> the stats for the Navy time server are - 192.5.41.41 / tock.usno.navy.mil=
.
>
>
> I would greatly appreciate and feedback / advice, etc.
>
>
> Thanks!!!
>
>
> Ed
>
>
