Re: [ntpwg] Different security mechanisms (NTS, Autokey, Symmetric Security) and key exchange techniques

Harlan Stenn <stenn@ntp.org> Tue, 15 March 2016 21:02 UTC

Return-Path: <ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-ntp-archives-ahFae6za@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-ntp-archives-ahFae6za@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D800012DDA6 for <ietfarch-ntp-archives-ahFae6za@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Mar 2016 14:02:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 ohxunqxSP_sg for <ietfarch-ntp-archives-ahFae6za@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Mar 2016 14:02:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists.ntp.org (lists.ntp.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff7:1::7]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E89D12DD9F for <ntp-archives-ahFae6za@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 15 Mar 2016 14:02:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists.ntp.org (lists.ntp.org [149.20.68.7]) by lists.ntp.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6BA8986DBFC for <ntp-archives-ahFae6za@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 15 Mar 2016 21:02:05 +0000 (UTC)
X-Original-To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org
Delivered-To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org
Received: from stenn.ntp.org (stenn.ntp.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff7:1::30]) by lists.ntp.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7009286DB57 for <ntpwg@lists.ntp.org>; Tue, 15 Mar 2016 20:59:12 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [::1] (helo=stenn.ntp.org) by stenn.ntp.org with esmtp (Exim 4.86 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <stenn@stenn.ntp.org>) id 1afw3b-0000oR-8F; Tue, 15 Mar 2016 20:59:11 +0000
From: Harlan Stenn <stenn@ntp.org>
To: Hal Murray <hmurray@megapathdsl.net>
In-reply-to: <20160315074749.A1F6B406061@ip-64-139-1-69.sjc.megapath.net>
References: <20160315074749.A1F6B406061@ip-64-139-1-69.sjc.megapath.net>
Comments: In-reply-to Hal Murray <hmurray@megapathdsl.net> message dated "Tue, 15 Mar 2016 00:47:49 -0700."
X-Mailer: MH-E 7.4.2; nmh 1.6; XEmacs 21.4 (patch 24)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by tm-edit 1.8)
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2016 20:59:11 +0000
Message-Id: <E1afw3b-0000oR-8F@stenn.ntp.org>
Subject: Re: [ntpwg] Different security mechanisms (NTS, Autokey, Symmetric Security) and key exchange techniques
X-BeenThere: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Working Group for Network Time Protocol <ntpwg.lists.ntp.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.ntp.org/options/ntpwg>, <mailto:ntpwg-request@lists.ntp.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.ntp.org/pipermail/ntpwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:ntpwg@lists.ntp.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ntpwg-request@lists.ntp.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/ntpwg>, <mailto:ntpwg-request@lists.ntp.org?subject=subscribe>
Cc: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Errors-To: ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org
Sender: ntpwg <ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org>

Hal Murray writes:
> 
> stenn@ntp.org said:
> > Specifically, how much time is spent processing each of the first 6 packets
> ?
> >  I'm curious how many of these steps are expected to take 1.75 seconds or
> > longer. 
> 
> Where did the magic number of 1.75 come from?

It's less than 2, and leaves some room before it becomes 2.

iburst packets are sent at 2 second intervals.

H
--
> There is a big difference between "expected" for the normal case and 
> something like "happens often enough" so we shouldn't rule it out.
> 
> Are you asking about CPU time for client or server to process a packet or are
>  
> you including network transit time?  In either case, it's not hard to come up
>  
> with nasty cases that take a long time.
> 
> Bufferbloat can easily get over 2 seconds.  My DSL line is close to 4.
> 
> I leave it to your imagination as to how a CPU can take that long.  My straw 
> man would be a busy system without enough memory so it's swapping.  Logging 
> to a stuck NFS server is another good choice.
> 
> 
> -- 
> These are my opinions.  I hate spam.
> 
> 
> 
> 
_______________________________________________
ntpwg mailing list
ntpwg@lists.ntp.org
http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/ntpwg