Guys,
We are all reading too much in this discussion, including me. The NTP
selection algorithm is not a Byzantine agreement algorithm; it is a
majority subset algorithm. If the correctness intervals of two servers
overlap, but not with a third, a majority subset has been found.
However, operating with four client/servers in peer mode is a different
story and would in general require four peers. In this mode all
truechimers would have to agree on who the falseticker is.
Even with four peers a bulletproof agreement would be possible only if
all peers could see the timestamps of all other peers. On several
occasions I have proposed a new mode called NTP distributed mode. Each
peer woulr broadcast its timestmaps and those received from other peers.
The timestamps could be contained in extension fields. I challenge our
weekend warriors to carry out such an adventure.
If I can get das Buch out the door and survive the standards effort, I
might even launch that adventure myself, but I would rather somebody
beat me to it.
Dave
David Schwartz wrote:
> "Richard B. Gilbert" wrote in message
> news:vP6dndrj_8jgOaHfRVn-ug@comcast.com...
>
>
>>Aren't you assuming that the "*you*" already knows what time it is?
>
>
> No. The Byzantine Generals algorithm does not assume that any of the
> lieutenants already know the answer. In the case of NTP, the General is UTC
> and the Lieutenants are the time servers.
>
>
>>The objective of running NTP is to find out what time it is!
>
>
> Right.
>
>
>>It is very useful to start up with a more or less correct estimate of the
>>correct time but it is by no means required. If you use four servers, of
>>which at least three are working properly, you will eventually get to the
>>correct time.
>
>
> And if you use three, of which two are working properly, you will too.
> Those two will agree. The third will either agree or disagree. If agrees, no
> harm. If disagrees, he's outvoted.
>
> DS
>
> |