IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Ntp] WGLC on draft-ietf-alternative-port-01

Dieter Sibold <dsibold.ietf@gmail.com> Fri, 23 July 2021 17:29 UTC

Return-Path: <dsibold.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ntp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ntp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC7063A0D7A for <ntp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 23 Jul 2021 10:29:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 IsqF-vgAHNKz for <ntp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 23 Jul 2021 10:29:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ed1-x529.google.com (mail-ed1-x529.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::529]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F28523A0D70 for <ntp@ietf.org>; Fri, 23 Jul 2021 10:29:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ed1-x529.google.com with SMTP id u12so2684779eds.2 for <ntp@ietf.org>; Fri, 23 Jul 2021 10:29:39 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:embedded-html; bh=lETsJ5ZhleEdqGK0YhtSw2NAeW0eqUcERyIdo4Dukio=; b=egsuiWN6XoLUChCZNWex08UWjItCWIh1GaC8eSSGf+JD/23a6nu3ngzo3lTwfHlh6Q LdmhFMU827l6ilNtc6SFe6wQkTIdameko7H9lEkdgXMSKh1oD614uvmquN3EMHtKpwdk WqJQeY6S/AAjzqxBSo6DvwfG8lhg1mErLG0UOxFy71mp+yacqO0/JM/QgkTZFc0uch9Q gGSYFHgQpp8GO6/k51DCQAzRuF/TdtEf3QBIPHUrzZzU4csLhpaiP8ZV2WM8oGUnAbcy xYWIl/F6fKk+aBffB4R9ngeFhtPS9eISVuyYmVtBKc3BkTiF1dPzHD/iElaFrUjCjgR+ Tl7Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to :references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:embedded-html; bh=lETsJ5ZhleEdqGK0YhtSw2NAeW0eqUcERyIdo4Dukio=; b=Pw4bH+24BghbERQIBDRKowzn98bS+M0EqLIfpdj/qZvWxwFDr7aNSnjc8DlpyoZ5ip n8xp/aW6V7TGco2wAC/FEUMA4PvxdGwNxnlNmQ79dIZQI3mqPQQJAzS1uLlwAReDOjmK qynuwWzVPprBeejDNZ/mOJOdWCK90tp7wg0u4A8LWKyhDkw6j5P26dylMMQhxGzftfFI 3LFgsf/qGmlge276LjNolABcClqY6yvpMBGdH6J5enDH0KxKJ5zlt8lxJIAlvQlvEX4I 2rPJ2Vlu6z3dKsR2OCr4JbUXgCmhG17FX9cYkuGhMEjV9qYjzj1XjLuGPezG36r3vTEx DxmQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533lm19pfMtp9a+/1dbLDlbv95/GXwvbtIoIGlGaNPnpHsQGyYCB +5Ue8Us7G4v7wYY2LAiC7KQ=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxVFNZ7Eg3H2PHC8RRoyi2L9FnanwGC9ApdiS4BEZB/RW5iEvO9dfJ+cGMhevPGZjGFGoxGJg==
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6402:2919:: with SMTP id ee25mr7024715edb.222.1627061376640; Fri, 23 Jul 2021 10:29:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.111.24] (p200300d17f112400848bb8404d8e5ae5.dip0.t-ipconnect.de. [2003:d1:7f11:2400:848b:b840:4d8e:5ae5]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id h17sm14273758edv.5.2021.07.23.10.29.35 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 23 Jul 2021 10:29:35 -0700 (PDT)
From: Dieter Sibold <dsibold.ietf@gmail.com>
To: Erik Kline <ek.ietf@gmail.com>
Cc: Danny Mayer <mayer@pdmconsulting.net>, Watson Ladd <watsonbladd@gmail.com>, Miroslav Lichvar <mlichvar@redhat.com>, NTP WG <ntp@ietf.org>
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2021 19:29:34 +0200
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.14r5818)
Message-ID: <A0780D44-3844-4172-A064-669C6352EB1E@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAMGpriVYzmP-FHBb3uCY=v2DPsecJjKC7BZrGKr7P8tbei6w8g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <PH0PR06MB7061EF8C35B67CDE520E60F2C2349@PH0PR06MB7061.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> <YNMbMd+3dDjAnIDP@localhost> <CACsn0cnMR=E13wd06+=Jdr++s5hqvSt7VitE8euUzc2dF_SjtQ@mail.gmail.com> <a39454b6-31b2-a8f5-1070-3d1b3c155297@pdmconsulting.net> <CAMGpriVYzmP-FHBb3uCY=v2DPsecJjKC7BZrGKr7P8tbei6w8g@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_MailMate_3D86A25C-FB34-4DC2-961E-054D0508502C_="
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Embedded-HTML: [{"plain":[208, 1704], "uuid":"E49553C1-3E46-4E1C-8F92-6F8F9B85B367"}]
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ntp/-WbWt-lc9oInioaLNwPhfsgswfE>
Subject: Re: [Ntp] WGLC on draft-ietf-alternative-port-01
X-BeenThere: ntp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Network Time Protocol <ntp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ntp>, <mailto:ntp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ntp/>
List-Post: <mailto:ntp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ntp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ntp>, <mailto:ntp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2021 17:29:45 -0000

Hi Erik,

Personally, I don’t think that port 123 is completely wasted. I 
support your recommendation to request an early review of the transport 
area.
- Dieter

On 26 Jun 2021, at 5:54, Erik Kline wrote:

> On Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 6:53 AM Danny Mayer <mayer@pdmconsulting.net> 
> wrote:
>
>>
>> On 6/24/21 1:08 AM, Watson Ladd wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jun 23, 2021 at 4:30 AM Miroslav Lichvar 
>>> <mlichvar@redhat.com>
>> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Jun 11, 2021 at 01:36:03PM +0000, Karen O'Donoghue wrote:
>>>>> NTP Working Group,
>>>>>
>>>>> This email starts a two week working group last call (WGLC) on
>>>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ntp-alternative-port/
>>>> One thing that I'd like to specifically ask everyone to consider
>>>> is the intended future of the alternative port. Do we expect NTP to
>>>> fully move there at some point and keep the port 123 only for 
>>>> legacy
>>>> implementations? Or should it always be just an alternative in case
>>>> the port 123 is not working?
>>> I do not think the situation with port 123 is salvageable. There is
>>> too much blocking and other manipulation. I think this doc as is is
>>> the only way forward.
>>
>> Using an alternative port will not fly. You need to remember that 
>> there
>> are millions upon millions of devices out there that use port 123 for
>> NTP. Don't expect them to change just because you wrote a document to
>> say to use a different port. If you want to use a different port you 
>> may
>> as well design a different protocol. The port number is baked in and 
>> all
>> firewalls would need to be changed to accommodate this.
>>
>> I will need to read the document again and decide on my vote. I don't
>> think that the consequences have been thought through.
>>
>
> May I recommend that we request an early Transport Area Review for 
> this
> document?  I'm happy to click the button myself.  They might have some
> thoughts/advice on these issues.

> _______________________________________________
> ntp mailing list
> ntp@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ntp

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email