Re: [dhcwg] [ntpwg] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-ogud-dhc-udp-time-option-01.txt

Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@nominum.com> Mon, 02 December 2013 20:05 UTC

Return-Path: <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA3601ADF2F for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Dec 2013 12:05:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0adEJbkB_E-S for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Dec 2013 12:05:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from exprod7og122.obsmtp.com (exprod7og122.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.22]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60B221ADEB4 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Dec 2013 12:05:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from shell-too.nominum.com ([64.89.228.229]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob122.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUpzn6zXwoFOqgyEugn96ByyxsQOChN7r@postini.com; Mon, 02 Dec 2013 12:04:59 PST
Received: from archivist.nominum.com (archivist.nominum.com [64.89.228.108]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by shell-too.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21D961B82DD for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Dec 2013 12:04:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-01.win.nominum.com [64.89.228.131]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by archivist.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03B63190043; Mon, 2 Dec 2013 12:04:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.3] (192.168.1.10) by CAS-01.WIN.NOMINUM.COM (192.168.1.100) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Mon, 2 Dec 2013 12:04:58 -0800
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.0 \(1822\))
From: Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@nominum.com>
In-Reply-To: <20131202185648.91031406060@ip-64-139-1-69.sjc.megapath.net>
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2013 15:04:54 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <19044894-42C6-498C-88E5-85FCAE4C5F00@nominum.com>
References: <20131202185648.91031406060@ip-64-139-1-69.sjc.megapath.net>
To: Hal Murray <hmurray@megapathdsl.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1822)
X-Originating-IP: [192.168.1.10]
Cc: NTP Working Group <ntpwg@lists.ntp.org>, "dhcwg@ietf.org WG" <dhcwg@ietf.org>, Bernie Volz <volz@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] [ntpwg] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-ogud-dhc-udp-time-option-01.txt
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dhcwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2013 20:05:03 -0000

On Dec 2, 2013, at 1:56 PM, Hal Murray <hmurray@megapathdsl.net> wrote:
> ted.lemon@nominum.com said:
> [Context is NTP servers next to root DNS servers.]
>> History suggests otherwise.   If an IP address is hardcoded, it will get
>> pummeled by devices that are too dumb to give up. 
> 
> That's why I was suggesting a crappy clock.  Can we get something that is 
> crappy enough that nobody would use it for anything other than getting off 
> the ground yet still good enough for DNSSEC to work?

No.   Think about this seriously.   Who is going to tweak this?   The end-user?   This isn't realistic.   We had millions of home gateways DDOSing a university NTP server for years because the router vendor burned the IP address of the NTP server into the firmware.   I doubt anybody got decent time out of this arrangement, but nevertheless it persisted.

> Are there two layers of DHCP?  ISP to home router and home router to PC.

Yes.

> If ISPs ran NTP servers, say next to their DNS servers, could DHCP provide IP 
> Addresses for both DNS and NTP servers over both hops?

Yes.

> Is it reasonable to trust an ISP's NTP servers?

See my first response on this thread: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dhcwg/current/msg15039.html