[193137] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Recent NTP pool traffic increase
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Royce Williams)
Wed Dec 21 00:22:47 2016
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <CA+E3k90UNUAtBrbdEQ7aqW_sZUO6aKXjAszazU_CQdaBypU4Mw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Royce Williams <royce@techsolvency.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2016 20:21:47 -0900
To: "nanog@nanog.org list" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 8:19 PM, Royce Williams <royce@techsolvency.com> wr=
ote:
> On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 8:04 PM, Yury Shefer <shefys@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Google announced public NTP service some time ago:
>> https://developers.google.com/time/
>
> Leap smearing does look interesting as way to sidestep the
> potentially-jarring leap-second problem ... but a note of caution.
>
> I've had multiple time geeks tell me that leap-smearing is pretty
> different from strict-RFC NTP, and Google themselves say on that page:
>
> "We recommend that you don=E2=80=99t configure Google Public NTP together=
with
> non-leap-smearing NTP servers."
>
> So it looks like we shouldn't mix and match. And since most folks
> should probably want some heterogeneity in their NTP, it may be a
> little premature to jump on the leap-smear bandwagon just yet.
>
> I'm vague on the details, so I could be wrong.
This is informative:
https://docs.ntpsec.org/latest/leapsmear.html
> Does anyone know of any other (non Google) leap-smearing NTP implementati=
ons?
Royce
