[LEAPSECS] more poison in the NTP pool
imp at bsdimp.com
Tue Sep 4 09:35:04 EDT 2012
On Sep 4, 2012, at 3:12 AM, Paul Sheer wrote:
>> It seems from this that there are always a few people advertising
>> leap seconds when they shouldn't be...
> previously i proposed that any code that measures a fail-timeout make
> that timeout 1000ms longer whenever t % 86400 is near zero
I assume that you mean near 0 or near 86400 since % is unsigned.
> this pattern would duck most bugs
With timeouts, yes. With other things, not so much...
> these bogus advertisements seem like another good reason to implement
It says a lot about the robustness of leap seconds...
More information about the LEAPSECS