Re: [Ntp] Call for adoption: draft-gont-ntp-port-randomization

Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> Wed, 11 September 2019 11:35 UTC

Return-Path: <fgont@si6networks.com>
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 75EA71200F6 for <ntp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Sep 2019 04:35:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 nEJACsb_9IMN for <ntp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Sep 2019 04:35:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fgont.go6lab.si (fgont.go6lab.si [IPv6:2001:67c:27e4::14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5841F1200D8 for <ntp@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Sep 2019 04:35:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.8.100] (unknown [178.243.177.155]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by fgont.go6lab.si (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6AFBD85323; Wed, 11 Sep 2019 13:35:27 +0200 (CEST)
To: Harlan Stenn <stenn@nwtime.org>, ntp@ietf.org
References: <CC9AD585-537F-4A85-9D1F-909E7D864E81@isoc.org> <0041f431-2376-37d5-5405-4f57751c24b7@nwtime.org>
From: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
Openpgp: preference=signencrypt
Message-ID: <fdb2e100-4d82-4ac6-17fb-7403ad8495d7@si6networks.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2019 14:35:20 +0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <0041f431-2376-37d5-5405-4f57751c24b7@nwtime.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ntp/AdRQn5D4IXmEg62EMFDWDqcRbtM>
Subject: Re: [Ntp] Call for adoption: draft-gont-ntp-port-randomization
X-BeenThere: ntp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: <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: Wed, 11 Sep 2019 11:35:30 -0000

Harlan,

On 10/9/19 07:36, Harlan Stenn wrote:
> I am opposed to the adoption of this document as currently written.
> 
> It should not be on the Standards track.
> 
> A partial list of my objections and concerns follow.
> 
> Its recommendations are already allowed by RFC5905.

The goal of the document is to *recommend* port randomization. So I
don't know why "this is allowed by RFC5905" can be an objection.



> It focuses on client mode, and is written in a way where that's the only
> mode worth considering.

Again: how can this be an objection?  It focuses in client mode because
this is the mode in which you should be randomizing the source port.




> It is written only from the POV of "internet traffic" and its
> recommendations, if followed or prescribed, will negatively impact
> behavior and analysis of internal NTP traffic.

Could you please elaborate on this one?

(aside: it would seem to me that ntp.org's implementation is the only
one that does not randomize the source port. Are folks running any of
the other implementations having a terrible life?)

Thanks,
-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492