Subject: [ntpwg] KISS codes and timestamps

From: mayer at gis.net (Danny Mayer)
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 22:27:59 -0400

[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

---

From: mills at udel.edu (David L. Mills)
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 03:16:17 +0000

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:

> _______________________________________________
> ntpwg mailing list
> ntpwg at lists.ntp.org
> https://lists.ntp.org/mailman/listinfo/ntpwg

---

From: GDowd at symmetricom.com (Greg Dowd)
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 15:50:36 -0700

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,

Dave

> 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?

---

From: mills at udel.edu (David L. Mills)
Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2007 03:29:04 +0000

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

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