NTP syncing

[Gene Heskett]

On Thursday 23 September 2004 05:54, Nifty Hat Mitch wrote:
>On Wed, Sep 22, 2004 at 08:31:12PM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
>> On Wednesday 22 September 2004 19:21, Nifty Hat Mitch wrote:
>> >On Tue, Sep 21, 2004 at 10:34:23PM -0700, Kenneth Porter wrote:
>> >> --On Tuesday, September 21, 2004 11:17 AM -0400 Gene Heskett
>> >>
[...]
>Name servers  and smtp boxes are commonly hunkered down
>in some far off 'safe' location.   If you run "dig" on
>the IP address you posted from I find
>    ;; AUTHORITY SECTION:
>    88.73.153.141.in-addr.arpa. 52848 IN    NS     
> ns1.bellatlantic.net. 88.73.153.141.in-addr.arpa. 52848 IN    NS   
>   ns2.bellatlantic.net. And then dig on those name servers:
>    ;; AUTHORITY SECTION:
>    bellatlantic.net.       13149   IN      NS      ns4.verizon.net.
>    bellatlantic.net.       13149   IN      NS     
> ns1.bellatlantic.net. bellatlantic.net.       13149   IN      NS   
>   ns2.verizon.net. bellatlantic.net.       13149   IN      NS     
> ns2.bellatlantic.net.
>
>So any three of these (ns[1234]) would be good in your
> /etc/resolv.conf. Pick ones that have the most 'different' routes
> for reliability. If you run dig on any of the dhcp assigned host
> names you are given and look at the NS records you might locate
> some closer.
>
>> 2. One would think that in 17 other machines, there would be a
>> timeserver.  Obviously these twerps aren't running a thing we
>> don't scream for.
>
>Don't scream just ask.

verizon doesn't seem to hear unless you scream. :)
>
>In the case of NTP most router guys do not look on their
>boxes as a service resource so they never think to turn ntp
>on. As long as they route packets the other stuff is extra.

And no doubt someone will come up with a tariff rule that allows them 
to charge extra for it :(

>So, In your case use these three ntp hosts.
>Yes all three.
>  # http://www.pool.ntp.org/
>  server pool.ntp.org
>  server pool.ntp.org
>  server pool.ntp.org
>
>> Actually, there's a 3rd question: WTF if the secondary dns doing
>> when it attempts to contact my firewall box on a high port, 32,711
>> or such as I posted last night?  I sent a nastygram to both
>> postmaster and abuse at the secondary dns's name, specifically
>> requesting a reply, but in 18 hours none has been forthcoming. 
>> Should I just keep beating on them till they get tired of me and
>> disconnect me, or what?
>
>Nastygrams only make support folk nasty.  In this case the details
> of their network will be unknown to all but a handful.  It does not
> hurt to ask but it is not worth a nastygram.

When it costs me a new router for $80+tax, its worth a "nastygram"...

>As long as the line gets you packets in and out for the right price,
>not a problem.

That it does for the most part.

>A tool like firestarter has knowledge of common port use
>and translates to human what it can.  The rest you need
>to google.   As long as your firewall blocked the connection
>... who cares.

portsentry has blocked many many hack attempts. Back when I was on 
dialup, I was rarely connected for long enough to get the mail 
without getting hit.  Those who loudly proclaim that an un-protected 
windows box is owned in 20 seconds aren't being the least bit 
facetious.  But out of many thousands of logged attempts, no one ever 
got past portsentry (that I know of) yet.  And traffic indicated by 
the modems lights is exclusively generated by my activities

>Note that traceroute will generate icmp messages back to your box. 
> We can start another thread to research and discuss that topic
> (routing and icmp) if your Google efforts do not find good answers.
>
>If /etc/services does not help look at header files like these:
>
>   /usr/include/netdb.h /usr/include/netinet/in.h ... etc.

I'll do a read of these, thanks.

>Programmers have done some homework on this stuff..

-- 
Cheers, Gene
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
99.26% setiathome rank, not too shabby for a WV hillbilly
Yahoo.com attorneys please note, additions to this message
by Gene Heskett are:
Copyright 2004 by Maurice Eugene Heskett, all rights reserved.