On Sat, Mar 03, 2007 at 01:31:49PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 28, 2007 at 12:43:55PM +0100, Joerg Dorchain wrote:
> > Addendum:
> >
> > With the nopeer option removed from the default restrict statement,
> > multicast works as expected.
>
> So this was just a configuration error?
No
On Wed, Feb 28, 2007 at 12:43:55PM +0100, Joerg Dorchain wrote:
> Addendum:
>
> With the nopeer option removed from the default restrict statement,
> multicast works as expected.
So this was just a configuration error?
> The open question for me now is, why is there a difference between using
>
Addendum:
With the nopeer option removed from the default restrict statement,
multicast works as expected.
The open question for me now is, why is there a difference between using
eth0 directly and br0?
Bye,
Joerg
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Tue, Feb 27, 2007 at 07:53:34PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> > multicastclient
> >
> > as last lines.
> >
> > netstat -g does not show a multicast group membership, and an lsof does
> > not show an open multicast socket of ntpd.
> >
> > Replacing the 224.0.1.1 on the server with the network br
forwarded 409170
thanks
On Wed, Jan 31, 2007 at 12:55:51PM +0100, Joerg Dorchain wrote:
> Package: ntp
> Version: 1:4.2.2.p4+dfsg-1
>
> This package is running on a time server configured to send out
> multicast time informformation via broadcast 224.0.1.1 ttl 1
>
> They arrive at a client (tcpd
Package: ntp
Version: 1:4.2.2.p4+dfsg-1
This package is running on a time server configured to send out
multicast time informformation via broadcast 224.0.1.1 ttl 1
They arrive at a client (tcpdump shows it, strange enough with a ttl of
32), but it does not react to it.
The client uses the suppl
6 matches
Mail list logo
