Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
ntp-b.boulder.nist.gov not synchronized
35 views
Skip to first unread message
Jason
Jun 13, 2013, 8:58:54 PM6/13/13
to
Since about 1800 Eastern time (US) on 10Jun, ntp-a.boulder.nist.gov is
sending "clock unsynchronized". This is one of two NIST-supported,
_authenticated_, timeservers (the other is ntp-b.nist.gov).
We are regulatorily required to confirm twice daily that our system's
time (derived from GPS) is within 1 second of "official" US Gov't time
(NIST). There is a legal requirement for NIST here, otherwise I'd just
say that USNO (root of Air Force's GPS traceability) is within ~20nS of
NIST and move on.
The maintainer, Dr. Judah Levine at NIST Boulder, is unavailable.
Other contacts I've tried at NIST Boulder have been unhelpful.
Does anyone have a contact, short of the director of Time and Frequency,
(Mr O'Brian, I think), that they could direct me to?
Barring that, I may have to find a modem and hook it up so the host can
dial ACTS (positive ID via published telephone #), then have the
company's software folks adapt their code.
Thanks,
Jason
sending "clock unsynchronized". This is one of two NIST-supported,
_authenticated_, timeservers (the other is ntp-b.nist.gov).
We are regulatorily required to confirm twice daily that our system's
time (derived from GPS) is within 1 second of "official" US Gov't time
(NIST). There is a legal requirement for NIST here, otherwise I'd just
say that USNO (root of Air Force's GPS traceability) is within ~20nS of
NIST and move on.
The maintainer, Dr. Judah Levine at NIST Boulder, is unavailable.
Other contacts I've tried at NIST Boulder have been unhelpful.
Does anyone have a contact, short of the director of Time and Frequency,
(Mr O'Brian, I think), that they could direct me to?
Barring that, I may have to find a modem and hook it up so the host can
dial ACTS (positive ID via published telephone #), then have the
company's software folks adapt their code.
Thanks,
Jason
Doug Calvert
Jun 13, 2013, 10:29:52 PM6/13/13
to
Why cant you use the other authenticated server? And if matching the
telephone number to a published number is enough to meet your
reguratory burden why not just use any of nists published names and
then leverage dnssec tp verify the ip/name mapping?
> _______________________________________________
> questions mailing list
> ques...@lists.ntp.org
> http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/questions
telephone number to a published number is enough to meet your
reguratory burden why not just use any of nists published names and
then leverage dnssec tp verify the ip/name mapping?
> questions mailing list
> ques...@lists.ntp.org
> http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/questions
Jason
Jun 14, 2013, 8:31:11 AM6/14/13
to
Doug,
Thanks for the response.
We are using the other authenticated server. With only one available,
our redundancy is gone. If NIST could say, for example, that the broken
server would be fixed come Monday, I'd chill. However, people I've been
able to contact are saying the only person that knows anything about /
can do anything with the broken server is out until July.
I'll look into dnssec for one (or more) of the non-authenticated servers.
Thanks for that idea.
Jason.
Thanks for the response.
We are using the other authenticated server. With only one available,
our redundancy is gone. If NIST could say, for example, that the broken
server would be fixed come Monday, I'd chill. However, people I've been
able to contact are saying the only person that knows anything about /
can do anything with the broken server is out until July.
I'll look into dnssec for one (or more) of the non-authenticated servers.
Thanks for that idea.
Jason.
Doug Calvert
Jun 14, 2013, 3:20:14 PM6/14/13
to
Harlan Stenn
Jun 14, 2013, 3:49:53 PM6/14/13
to
Jason writes:
> I'll look into dnssec for one (or more) of the non-authenticated servers.
DNSSEC requires accurate time...
> I'll look into dnssec for one (or more) of the non-authenticated servers.
H
0 new messages