[LEAPSECS] more poison in the NTP pool

[Warner Losh]

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

> this


It says a lot about the robustness of leap seconds...

Warner