Subject: [ntpwg] IPv6 Router Advertisement Option for NTP Server Configuration

From: "Bhatia, Manav (Manav)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2011 06:59:10 +0530

Hi,

We have posted a new draft that extends Router Advertisements to include information about the one or more NTP servers present in the network. This is useful where the delays in acquiring server addresses and communicating with the servers are critical (mobile environment for example). 

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-bcd-6man-ntp-server-ra-opt-00.txt 

Would be great to get some feedback from the NTP and the TICTOC WGs.

We will also be soliciting comments from the v6man WG.

Cheers, Manav
_______________________________________________
ntpwg mailing list
[email-masked]
http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/ntpwg

---

From: Danny Mayer <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2011 00:13:23 -0500

On 12/19/2011 8:29 PM, Bhatia, Manav (Manav) wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> We have posted a new draft that extends Router Advertisements to
include information about the one or more NTP servers present in the
network. This is useful where the delays in acquiring server addresses
and communicating with the servers are critical (mobile environment for
example).
> We will also be soliciting comments from the v6man WG.

Is there a reason that RFC5908 - "Network Time Protocol (NTP) Server
Option for DHCPv6" is not sufficient for this? Why do we need yet
another way of specifying NTP servers? I'm copying the DHC working group
on this though I think some of them are also on the 6man WG mailing list
as well.

Danny

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2011 16:33:41 +0000

On Dec 26, 2011, at 12:13 AM, Danny Mayer wrote:

It's actually a really bad idea to have two ways of configuring the same information.   The choice to provide DNS server information via RA was a mistake that is now creating unnecessary complexity in stacks.   This is not something that should be duplicated for additional RA options.