[Ntp] NTP port randomization: per-association vs. per-request basis?

[Fernando Gont <[e-mail]>]

Folks,

A while ago Miroslav raised a few questions 
(https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ntp/9VDGNerkFM5E0rCmzuf019rfclo/) 
on this list. In order to get a better idea of what's the wg's feeling 
about them, I'm re-raising them in separate emails.

The current version of the I-D recommends the (more conservative) port 
randomization on a per-association basis. However, he raised the 
question regarding whether it would make sense to recommend per-request 
port randomization, based on these arguments:

- It seems to be the current practice. From the implementations
   that I'm familiar with and that use a random source port, each one
   opens a new socket for each request, at least by default. On my
   public servers I see that most clients do change their port over
   time.

- It doesn't seem like a good idea to require a client to keep its
   port open when it's not waiting for a response. If it received a
   valid response, or didn't receive a valid response in few seconds
   after sending the request, it should close the port.

- The port number may be discoverable by other means, so it should
   change frequently. For example, the attacker could try sending
   packets to all ports and observe which one changed a value reported
   by the client in a monitoring protocol (e.g. mode 6). If the
   attacker can determine the port number, which cannot be prevented in
   the general case, the time for which it is useful for attacks should
   be limited.

Thoughts?

Thanks!

Cheers,
-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: [e-mail]
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492