[189257] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: NIST NTP servers
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (John Souvestre)
Thu May 12 23:17:45 2016
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: John Souvestre <john@souvestre.com>
X-Google-Original-From: "John Souvestre" <John@Souvestre.com>
To: "'Chris Adams'" <cma@cmadams.net>,
<nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <20160513022042.GA24092@cmadams.net>
Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 22:17:40 -0500
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
>>> I know it's supposed to have better range and signal quality, but I
thought accuracy was about the same. The variables that affect accuracy
are mostly external to the signal itself (propagation delay affected by
atmospheric conditions).
You are correct, but the what I read from NIST is that the Enhanced (PM)
format " will allow faster and more accurate synchronization, as well as
further address reception at particularly low SNIR."
So perhaps I should have said better "resolution" rather than =
"accuracy". :)
John
=A0=A0=A0 John Souvestre - New Orleans LA
-----Original Message-----
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Chris Adams
Sent: 2016 May 12, Thu 21:21
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: NIST NTP servers
Once upon a time, John Souvestre <john@souvestre.com> said:
> The Enhanced WWVB signal has better range and more accuracy, but I =
don't
know if any receivers are available yet.
I know it's supposed to have better range and signal quality, but I
thought accuracy was about the same. The variables that affect accuracy
are mostly external to the signal itself (propagation delay affected by
atmospheric conditions).
At one point, they were going to put a second transmitter closer to the
east coast, and it was going to be at the Army's Redstone Arsenal, next
to Huntsville, AL, where I live; I probably could have put a receiver in
a steel box and still had good signal! NASA vetoed it though.
--=20
Chris Adams <cma@cmadams.net>
