Re: NTP Problem

2003-02-07 Thread Todd A. Jacobs
On 7 Feb 2003, Rodolfo J. Paiz wrote: > Do you know whether this has been submitted to Bugzilla, such that it's > changed in the next update to the dhclient program? Somneone else submitted a similar (but not identical) patch. His patch adds specific exception lines; mine is more minimalist. Eit

Re: NTP Problem

2003-02-07 Thread Rodolfo J. Paiz
On Tue, 2003-02-04 at 14:49, Todd A. Jacobs wrote: > On 4 Feb 2003, Rodolfo J. Paiz wrote: > > > So, if we apply that patch to all 8.0 machines running dhclient, and > > then their individual NTP daemons will automatically sync to the > > ntp-servers specified by the DHCP server? That would be _ve

Re: NTP Problem

2003-02-04 Thread Todd A. Jacobs
On 4 Feb 2003, Rodolfo J. Paiz wrote: > So, if we apply that patch to all 8.0 machines running dhclient, and > then their individual NTP daemons will automatically sync to the > ntp-servers specified by the DHCP server? That would be _very_ nice. Yes indeedy. > Silly question, but having looked

Re: NTP Problem

2003-02-04 Thread Rodolfo J. Paiz
On Sat, 2003-02-01 at 14:00, Todd A. Jacobs wrote: > On Sat, 1 Feb 2003, Bret Hughes wrote: > > > I don;t have an 8.0 machine to look at. Has redhat modified network > > startup scripts to slurp ntp servers from dhcp information? > > Yup. [...] > > Basically, all my patch does is change "defaul

Re: NTP Problem

2003-02-02 Thread Todd A. Jacobs
On Sun, 2 Feb 2003, Kent Borg wrote: > I looked more carefully at Red Hat's /etc/ntp.conf file and commented > out the line that read "restrict default ignore". That seems to have > fixed it, but I am wondering whether I have just opened up a security > hole. "restrict default ignore" will ignor

Re: NTP Problem

2003-02-02 Thread Kent Borg
On Fri, Jan 31, 2003 at 09:30:05PM -0800, Todd A. Jacobs wrote: > On Fri, 31 Jan 2003, Kent Borg wrote: > > > I have an 8.0 client on which ntpd can't get the time. I have an ntpd > > running on my basement server (RH 7.0) and it used to supply time just > > dhclient breaks NTP in Red Hat 8.0. P

Re: NTP Problem

2003-02-01 Thread John Salamone
Brett, Do you know if SWAT comes with samba when you download it from samba.org? - Original Message - From: "Bret Hughes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, February 01, 2003 5:12 PM Subject: Re: NTP Problem > On Sat, 2003-02-01 at 14

Re: NTP Problem

2003-02-01 Thread Bret Hughes
On Sat, 2003-02-01 at 14:00, Todd A. Jacobs wrote: > On Sat, 1 Feb 2003, Bret Hughes wrote: > > > I don;t have an 8.0 machine to look at. Has redhat modified network > > startup scripts to slurp ntp servers from dhcp information? > > Yup. And the default configuration is now to ignore everything

Re: NTP Problem

2003-02-01 Thread Todd A. Jacobs
On Sat, 1 Feb 2003, Bret Hughes wrote: > I don;t have an 8.0 machine to look at. Has redhat modified network > startup scripts to slurp ntp servers from dhcp information? Yup. And the default configuration is now to ignore everything except localhost, so every time dhclient runs, it picks up the

Re: NTP Problem

2003-02-01 Thread Bret Hughes
On Fri, 2003-01-31 at 23:30, Todd A. Jacobs wrote: > On Fri, 31 Jan 2003, Kent Borg wrote: > > > I have an 8.0 client on which ntpd can't get the time. I have an ntpd > > running on my basement server (RH 7.0) and it used to supply time just > > dhclient breaks NTP in Red Hat 8.0. Patch it with:

Re: NTP Problem

2003-01-31 Thread Todd A. Jacobs
On Fri, 31 Jan 2003, Kent Borg wrote: > I have an 8.0 client on which ntpd can't get the time. I have an ntpd > running on my basement server (RH 7.0) and it used to supply time just dhclient breaks NTP in Red Hat 8.0. Patch it with: http://www.codegnome.org/patches/dhclient-script.patc

Re: NTP problem

2000-11-03 Thread Todd A. Jacobs
On Thu, 2 Nov 2000, David Talkington wrote: > Can anyone shed light on this? This is a freshly compiled version of > NTP from ntp.org. The "bind()" error is the one of interest; I get > the same thing with the stock Red Hat xntpd. Netstat confirms that > port 123 is clear, so that's not the pr