Hi Harlan, On 6/13/20 8:26 PM, Harlan Stenn wrote: >> SNMP exists and the NTP WG published RFC 5907 to cover the MIB support >> needed by NTP. I believe that also counts as a better alternative. > > Unbelievable. > > TTBOMK, the only implementation of 5907 is the one in the reference Interesting statement... After a cursory search, I found that Cisco implemented 5907 in 2012. > implementation, and in the 12 years it has been out there we have had NO > reports of it being used. Furthermore, it was implemented USING MODE 6 > PACKETS! > Not sure why you would implement SNMP support via an NTP auxiliary protocol, but that is your choice. > The only known SNMP interface to ntpd, ntpsnmpd has not seen significant > updates since 2010. > > The mode 6 interface to ntpd, ntpq, remains in continuous development > and evolution. > > Please identify any other implementations of 5907. If you find any, how > significant are they? Are they proprietary 5907 implementations? What > implementations to they work on? > I would need someone from Cisco to verify, but it seems like their implementation is based on 5907. > Please show how SNMP is a better way to monitor and control NTP than ntpq. > > Please show me a working deployment of SNMP controlling NTP, and then > please compare the number and quality of these deployments with those > that do the same with ntpq. I am not going to dignify that demand with a response. The WG consensus is the WG consensus. Regards, Brian
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
