Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!pacbell.com!ucsd!ucbvax!udel.edu!Mills
From: Mills@udel.edu
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.time.ntp
Subject: Re:  xntp and Ultrix stock ntp
Message-ID: <9012131518.aa14059@huey.udel.edu>
Date: 13 Dec 90 20:18:41 GMT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Distribution: inet
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 22

Mohamed,

As mentioned previously, I have recommended xntpd for new
installations for several reasons. First, the implementation
will result in more accurate time, especially for those of
us nuts no trying to split the millisecond. Second, its
reference-clock implementation is much more solid than ntp.
Third, it includes cryptosum authentication features, which
when you end up winding the springs of 5000+ hosts, really is
a comforting thing. Fourth, its spytools are compatible with
the spec and at least one other impelementation (fuzzballs).
It has, of course, more codemass and requires more silicon
to run and heats the machine a few more watts, which may be
the reason DEC and Sun have resisted adopting it.

I have not observed that xntpd is more likely than not to mischime.
than ntp, but may I disingeniously suggest a version-3 
implementation should put all those fears to rest. Another
mission is to convert the spytools to SNMP; however, I fear
agreement on a MIB would take at least a year.

Dave