Re: Recent NTP pool traffic increase

[Harlan Stenn <stenn () nwtime org>]

On 12/20/16 9:21 PM, Royce Williams wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 8:19 PM, Royce Williams <royce () techsolvency com> wrote:
> > 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’t 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 implementations?

The NTP Project has had a leap-smear implementation for a while.

We also have a proposal for a REFID that indicates the provided time is
a leap-smear time, and Network Time Foundation is working on a new
timestamp format and API that will easily allow time exchange between
systems using different timescales.

-- 
Harlan Stenn <stenn () nwtime org>
http://networktimefoundation.org - be a member!