[ntpwg] KISS codes and timestamps

[David L. Mills]

Greg,

Stratum 16 in the code maps to stratum 0 on the wire. The code checks 
for that. However, thanks for making me check, as there was an error 
that mapped the stratum to 16 in the packet when it should have been zero.

Dave

Greg Dowd wrote:

> No stratum 16 as this is a kiss code packet but the fact that the
> unsynchronized bits are set pretty much covers it.
>
>
> Greg Dowd
> gdowd at symmetricom dot com (antispam format)
> Symmetricom, Inc.
> www.symmetricom.com
> "The current implementation is non-obvious and may need to be improved."
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ntpwg-bounces+gdowd=symmetricom.com at lists.ntp.org
> [mailto:ntpwg-bounces+gdowd=symmetricom.com at lists.ntp.org] On Behalf Of
> David L. Mills
> Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2007 8:16 PM
> To: NTP Working Group
> Subject: Re: [ntpwg] KISS codes and timestamps
>
> Danny,
>
> It shouldn't have to say anything. By definition, if leap bits show
> never synchronized and stratum 16, the client should assume the
> timestamps are not valid. The dirty little secret in the reference
> implementation is that the stamps are valid if the server is in fact
> properly synchronized.
>
> We have talked on occasion whether sufficient mischief could be achieved
> if the stamps were set to zero or produced a sinusoidal variation of
> fifty years over the day.
>
> Dave
>
> Danny Mayer wrote:
>
>> [I managed to send this to the wrong mailing list. My apologies if you
>
>
>> see this twice - PDM]
>>
>> I don't want to open a can of worms but should we add language to the
>> draft that says that if you receive DENY, RSTR, or RATE KISS codes you
>
>
>> should not rely on the contents of the NTP Timestamps in the NTP
>> packet or should we say that the contents of the Timestamps will
>
> always be valid?
>
>> Danny
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> ntpwg mailing list
>> ntpwg at lists.ntp.org
>> https://lists.ntp.org/mailman/listinfo/ntpwg
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ntpwg mailing list
> ntpwg at lists.ntp.org
> https://lists.ntp.org/mailman/listinfo/ntpwg


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://lists.ntp.org/pipermail/ntpwg/attachments/20070728/d69b18c5/attachment.html