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

Danny Mayer <> Thu, 24 June 2021 13:53 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5542E3A1DA4 for <>; Thu, 24 Jun 2021 06:53:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.238
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.238 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.338, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Q9zbzNDqAMCC for <>; Thu, 24 Jun 2021 06:52:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 273853A1D7A for <>; Thu, 24 Jun 2021 06:52:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from newusers-MBP.fios-router.home ( []) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4G9hQx4nyvzMNMP; Thu, 24 Jun 2021 13:52:41 +0000 (UTC)
To: Watson Ladd <>, Miroslav Lichvar <>
Cc: NTP WG <>
References: <> <YNMbMd+3dDjAnIDP@localhost> <>
From: Danny Mayer <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2021 09:52:40 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.11.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Ntp] WGLC on draft-ietf-alternative-port-01
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Network Time Protocol <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2021 13:53:01 -0000

On 6/24/21 1:08 AM, Watson Ladd wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 23, 2021 at 4:30 AM Miroslav Lichvar <> 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
>> 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.