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

Fernando Gont <> Wed, 11 September 2019 11:35 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75EA71200F6 for <>; Wed, 11 Sep 2019 04:35:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
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 ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nEJACsb_9IMN for <>; Wed, 11 Sep 2019 04:35:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:67c:27e4::14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5841F1200D8 for <>; Wed, 11 Sep 2019 04:35:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] (unknown []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6AFBD85323; Wed, 11 Sep 2019 13:35:27 +0200 (CEST)
To: Harlan Stenn <>,
References: <> <>
From: Fernando Gont <>
Openpgp: preference=signencrypt
Message-ID: <>
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: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Ntp] Call for adoption: draft-gont-ntp-port-randomization
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2019 11:35:30 -0000


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'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?)

Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492