IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Ntp] Antw: [EXT] Re: WGLC on draft‑ietf‑alternative‑port‑01

Hal Murray <halmurray+ietf@sonic.net> Sat, 31 July 2021 05:18 UTC

Return-Path: <halmurray+ietf@sonic.net>
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 69FD63A14BE for <ntp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 30 Jul 2021 22:18:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=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 rHMB5wq4BjPz for <ntp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 30 Jul 2021 22:18:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from d.mail.sonic.net (d.mail.sonic.net [64.142.111.50]) (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 1A9753A14BD for <ntp@ietf.org>; Fri, 30 Jul 2021 22:18:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 107-137-68-211.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net (107-137-68-211.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net [107.137.68.211]) (authenticated bits=0) by d.mail.sonic.net (8.15.1/8.15.1) with ESMTPSA id 16V5I5xO007838 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NOT); Fri, 30 Jul 2021 22:18:06 -0700
Received: from hgm (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by 107-137-68-211.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0C3128C157; Fri, 30 Jul 2021 22:18:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Mailer: exmh version 2.9.0 11/07/2018 with nmh-1.7.1
To: Danny Mayer <mayer@pdmconsulting.net>
cc: NTP WG <ntp@ietf.org>, Hal Murray <halmurray+ietf@sonic.net>
From: Hal Murray <halmurray+ietf@sonic.net>
In-Reply-To: Message from Danny Mayer <mayer@pdmconsulting.net> of "Thu, 29 Jul 2021 15:12:45 -0400." <315bacee-255f-b517-a149-dc37ae9e0999@pdmconsulting.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2021 22:18:05 -0700
Message-Id: <20210731051805.C0C3128C157@107-137-68-211.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net>
X-Sonic-CAuth: UmFuZG9tSVaOw4yweCed2F8+y3JVPmUSUUCAOkiHcrmjAkwVQwIZPSU6coI0G78qKOGkKe0b7BxGnZ1/YrZK9zy0wu/wICN6qP2V3ND/3pw=
X-Sonic-ID: C;Po25r77x6xGb+8xNcUAJVA== M;zgDor77x6xGb+8xNcUAJVA==
X-Sonic-Spam-Details: -1.5/5.0 by cerberusd
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ntp/34k6DSBQnNycOM-C8UkPICP9_5w>
Subject: Re: [Ntp] Antw: [EXT] Re: 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: Sat, 31 Jul 2021 05:18:09 -0000

> So how would using an alternative port make a difference?

Because the filters are looking for UDP port 123.  The smart ones do a length 
check and let 48 byte packets througg.  The dumb ones just nuke them all.

The recent discussion has focused on middleware.  It also happens on transit 
links.

I have a pool server in London.  The monitoring station in the US frequently 
kicks it out of the pool because it can't verify that it is responding.

We had significant troubles during the early NTS hackathons.  NTP packets with 
NTS extensions didn't get through.


-- 
These are my opinions.  I hate spam.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email