IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Ntp] Mandatory confidentiality for ntpv5

Hal Murray <halmurray+ietf@sonic.net> Thu, 21 October 2021 11:36 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 A42813A159C for <ntp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Oct 2021 04:36:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 2.401
X-Spam-Level: **
X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.401 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FAKE_REPLY_B=4.299, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no 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 xX9-7Nyyc8s9 for <ntp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Oct 2021 04:36:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from c.mail.sonic.net (c.mail.sonic.net [64.142.111.80]) (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 4B7023A1598 for <ntp@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Oct 2021 04:36:37 -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 c.mail.sonic.net (8.15.1/8.15.1) with ESMTPSA id 19LBaZYu019743 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NOT); Thu, 21 Oct 2021 04:36:35 -0700
Received: from hgm (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by 107-137-68-211.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6576528C157; Thu, 21 Oct 2021 04:36:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Mailer: exmh version 2.9.0 11/07/2018 with nmh-1.7.1
To: ntp@ietf.org
cc: Hal Murray <halmurray+ietf@sonic.net>
From: Hal Murray <halmurray+ietf@sonic.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2021 04:36:35 -0700
Message-Id: <20211021113635.6576528C157@107-137-68-211.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net>
X-Sonic-CAuth: UmFuZG9tSVa2EnDNNWBmymBjzgq/k9BEI9sQCw1kiqFdHgPa6vVI0J3llpM4/eObt+QOPsR1caO6THlILVTz8I8wbzO7HuhaLXd0THMGtco=
X-Sonic-ID: C;jHSXJWMy7BGAPyx66Nu5DA== M;OjDJJWMy7BGAPyx66Nu5DA==
X-Sonic-Spam-Details: -1.5/5.0 by cerberusd
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ntp/6A8ewF8lVmm1-ze1wH2PeQ0nkQ8>
Subject: Re: [Ntp] Mandatory confidentiality for ntpv5
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: Thu, 21 Oct 2021 11:36:42 -0000

martin.burnicki@meinberg.de said:
> How much of the packet would be encrypted?
> If it's fully encrypted, how could a NIC find out that an incoming packet is
> an NTP packet that may need to be timestamped (if timestamping of NTP packets
> is supported at all)? 

Why not have the NIC timestamp everything and let the driver discard the ones 
that the client software desn't want?

I assume there is some good reason or you wouldn't have asked the question.

How does current NIC firmware decide which packets to time stamp?

Are you using "timestamp" in the PTP sense of modify the packet?  I don't know 
how to do that with encrypted data.  I was thinking of "timestamp" in the 
sense of SO_TIMESTAMP.



-- 
These are my opinions.  I hate spam.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email