Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2014 13:16:19 +0200 From: Mark Martinec <Mark.Martinec+freebsd@ijs.si> To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [Bulk] Re: Stale NTP software included in FreeBSD (RELEASE/STABLE/CURRENT) Message-ID: <efee7d575ca3355619afc06fbad96420@mailbox.ijs.si> In-Reply-To: <CA%2B8gk99fPN4NPaZQWX6Fzj4WeA6=Vxpp9w8jpf66B6bqgyu%2B8g@mail.gmail.com> References: <20140903061024.GA14382@rwpc15.gfn.riverwillow.net.au> <5152f44f37895d107ae439997bc4cc3c@mailbox.ijs.si> <CA%2B8gk99fPN4NPaZQWX6Fzj4WeA6=Vxpp9w8jpf66B6bqgyu%2B8g@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>> Bug 2648 - 'restrict default' should imply both IP protocol families >> http://bugs.ntp.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2648 2014-09-03 13:08, je Axel napisal > Did you tried to add: > restrict default ignore > restrict -6 default ignore > > I follow steps described here: > http://support.ntp.org/bin/view/Support/AccessRestrictions I know, it is all described in that ntp PR. The point is that the 'restrict default' being equivalent to 'restrict -4 default' is contrary to documentation and is counterintuitive, leading to unintentionally leaving one address family unrestricted. The logic is made right in a later version of ntpd. Mark
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?efee7d575ca3355619afc06fbad96420>