Recent NTP pool traffic increase

Harlan Stenn stenn at
Wed Dec 21 05:32:01 UTC 2016

On 12/20/16 9:21 PM, Royce Williams wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 8:19 PM, Royce Williams <royce at> wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 8:04 PM, Yury Shefer <shefys at> wrote:
>>> Google announced public NTP service some time ago:
>> Leap smearing does look interesting as way to sidestep the
>> potentially-jarring leap-second problem ... but a note of caution.
>> I've had multiple time geeks tell me that leap-smearing is pretty
>> different from strict-RFC NTP, and Google themselves say on that page:
>> "We recommend that you don’t configure Google Public NTP together with
>> non-leap-smearing NTP servers."
>> So it looks like we shouldn't mix and match. And since most folks
>> should probably want some heterogeneity in their NTP, it may be a
>> little premature to jump on the leap-smear bandwagon just yet.
>> I'm vague on the details, so I could be wrong.
> This is informative:
>> Does anyone know of any other (non Google) leap-smearing NTP implementations?

The NTP Project has had a leap-smear implementation for a while.

We also have a proposal for a REFID that indicates the provided time is
a leap-smear time, and Network Time Foundation is working on a new
timestamp format and API that will easily allow time exchange between
systems using different timescales.

Harlan Stenn <stenn at> - be a member!

More information about the NANOG mailing list