[time-nuts] Google public NTP service

Gary E. Miller gem at rellim.com
Wed Nov 30 15:58:57 EST 2016

Yo Bob!

On Wed, 30 Nov 2016 15:42:58 -0500
Bob Camp <kb8tq at n1k.org> wrote:

> I believe the point was: If you start tossing around packets that are
> odd sized, it is likely to break a lot of existing code.

Not 'odd'.  Fully specified in the RFC.  Anyone that did not implement
the spec gets what they deserve.

IMHO, better for a packet that can be misinterpreted be dropped, Like 
the new non-standard Google NTP.  Unmarked these new packets can cause

But, to be fair, some assert the spec is a bit ambiguous. So any
extention should be a new RFC.  Like Autokey.

Gary E. Miller Rellim 109 NW Wilmington Ave., Suite E, Bend, OR 97703
	gem at rellim.com  Tel:+1 541 382 8588
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 455 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://www.febo.com/pipermail/time-nuts/attachments/20161130/043bd2d0/attachment.sig>

More information about the time-nuts mailing list