[j-nsp] Re: xntpd newbie ....

[Harshit Kumar]

Guys,
        Lets stop worrying about this non-issue, the fix has been
 taken care of in the next-build.

Thanks
Harshit
 

-----Original Message-----
From: Pekka Savola [mailto:pekkas at netcore.fi] 
Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2005 10:29 PM
To: Harshit Kumar
Cc: Jared Mauch; juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
Subject: RE: [j-nsp] Re: xntpd newbie ....

Hi,

On Tue, 1 Feb 2005, Harshit Kumar wrote:
> Actually it should have read the other way round. If service-pics
> are not installed you will see this error, I missed the "not" :-)
> Or if you remove the PIC later on from the system. 10.0.0.1 is not
> installed in the table, unless there is a pic in the system. 10.0.0.1
> and 10.0.0.x (pic internal address) are ends of a point to point
> interface. Its purely informational message and will be lowered to
> DEBUG level as part of PR 55431. I don't know why you didn't  see it
> prior to 7.0R2.7

I'm not sure if I still understand this response fully.

According to 'start shell - ifconfig', for example, there is no 
address 10.0.0.1 in the system, so I have no clue why xntpd thinks it 
should be binding to that address (xntpd is looping through all the 
addresses of the system and binding to all of them).

So, it seems there should be TWO fixes:
  1) lowering the messages to debug level (for those which do have 
service pics, remove them, and start wondering as the harmless 
messages come up), and
  2) making sure that 10.0.0.1 does not exist on the system which does 
not have service pics, i.e., xntpd does not even try to bind to that 
address.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pekka Savola [mailto:pekkas at netcore.fi]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2005 6:54 AM
> To: Jared Mauch
> Cc: Harshit Kumar; juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
> Subject: Re: [j-nsp] Re: xntpd newbie ....
>
> On Mon, 17 Jan 2005, Jared Mauch wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 17, 2005 at 12:41:29PM -0800, Harshit Kumar wrote:
>>> Those messages aren't going to harm the system in any way. 10.0.0.1
>>>  is an internal address which resides in an internal routing
instance
>>> (__juniper_private1__). You will see it when you have certain
> services
>>> pics installed. Its for communication between RE and the PIC only
and
> is
>>>
>>> not world-reachable.
>>
>> 	Seems that that IP shouldn't be attempted to be bound to by
>> ntp at all if it's not globally reachable.
>>
>> 	isn't that a bug then that your IPC ip range is being leaked?
>
> Regarding Harshit's first comment..
>
> FWIW, this has nothing to do with services pics.  We have none of
> those, nor routing instances of our own, and when we upgraded to
> 7.0R2.7, started seeing these messages.
>
> PR55431 despite its pretty bogus description is probably tracking this
> issue and there is no need to report it (again) ?
>
>

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings