From: hadek.el-ayachi@nsn.com
Date: Wed Oct 31 2007 - 12:47:21 ART
I still dont understand why are you using peer command.
This is my understanding:
I am asked to configure R6 to have its clock from BB1 [R6: ntp server
BB1 prefer] then failover
and get time from R3 if BB1 is down [R6: ntp server R3]. Also, R3 get
time from BB3 [R3:ntp server BB3 prefer]and fail
over to R6 in case BB3 is down[R3: ntp server R6].
I tested it, I shut down BB1 and R6 cant get clock from R3 until I
remover ntp server R6 from R3!
I undertand that you can create peering relationship using server cmd.
IEWB solution was:
I am asked to configure R6 to have its clock from BB1 [R6: ntp server
BB1 ] then failover
and get time from R3 if BB1 is down [R6: ntp peer R3]. Also, R3 get time
from BB3 [R3:ntp server BB3 ]and fail
over to R6 in case BB3 is down[R3: nothing].
The risk is if, for instance, BB3 has a stratum of 7 and R3 go to R6
because BB1 would have a str of 1. But this is the prefered solution
Your solutioon is :
I am asked to configure R6 to have its clock from BB1 [R6: ntp peer BB1,
ntp server BB1 prefer ] then failover
and get time from R3 if BB1 is down [R6: ntp server R3]. Also, R3 get
time from BB3 [R3:ntp peer BB3, ntp server BB3 prefer ]and fail
over to R6 in case BB3 is down[R3: ntp server R6].
You are peering with BBx, out of scope of the task: asked to get clock
from BBx
You are using server cmd to peer between R3 and R6, this is false
relating to my tests
What do you think?
________________________________
From: ext shiran guez [mailto:shiranp3@gmail.com]
Sent: mercredi 31 octobre 2007 14:21
To: El Ayachi Hadek (NSN - MA/Rabat)
Cc: ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: Re: NTP: server vs. peer
because BBx are NTP masters and I want the Rx to be redundant master to
the one another but still have the same clocking as the BBx.
if you would not peer with another master then you would relay on your
own internal clock.
1) I want them to take the BBx clocking as that was target one
2) I want them to give the clocking they took from BBx to the Rx
peer is with another master to sync clocking, the lower stratum is
better so R3 may be stratum 4 and BB3 stratum 3 so the clock of BB3.
so if R3 is to sync with BB3 clock he need to peer with him and the same
go for R6
need to peer with BB1.
that way you will have redundancy.
if they would say that R3 should be server to R6 and R6 to R3 in case of
fail then I would no peer I would relay on the internal clocking. but
because BBx are higher stratum and more accurate I want to relay on them
for the clock as it say in the task and then be redundant to one
another.
I hope this explanation was not to redundant :-)
On 10/31/07, hadek.el-ayachi@nsn.com <hadek.el-ayachi@nsn.com> wrote:
Ok, this was my point of view, however, the answer in iewbv4 lab
1 was the second one(using ntp peer cmd) !
however, why are you adding the ntp peer BBx cmd?
________________________________
From: ext shiran guez [mailto:shiranp3@gmail.com]
Sent: mercredi 31 octobre 2007 13:11
To: El Ayachi Hadek (NSN - MA/Rabat)
Cc: ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: Re: NTP: server vs. peer
peer is used to sync between master NTP
server is just to get the time
so you need
R6
ntp peer BB1
ntp server BB1 prefer
ntp server R3
R3
ntp peer BB3
ntp server BB3 prefer
ntp server R6
On 10/31/07, hadek.el-ayachi@nsn.com < hadek.el-ayachi@nsn.com>
wrote:
Hi all,
If I am asked to configure R6 to have its clock from BB1
then failover
and get time from R3 if BB1 is down. Also, R3 get time
from BB3 and fail
over to R6 in case BB3 is down.
What is correct:
1-
R6:
Ntp server BB1 prefer
Ntp server R3
R3:
Ntp server BB3 prefer
Ntp server R6
2-
R6:
Ntp server BB1
Ntp peer R3
R3:
Ntp server BB3
Ntp peer R6
Thanks for feedback
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Nov 16 2007 - 13:11:19 ART