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

Ulrich Windl <Ulrich.Windl@rz.uni-regensburg.de> Mon, 02 August 2021 06:02 UTC

Return-Path: <Ulrich.Windl@rz.uni-regensburg.de>
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 0937C3A0B6A for <ntp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 1 Aug 2021 23:02:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, 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 3DSlGqni1Qfi for <ntp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 1 Aug 2021 23:02:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx1.uni-regensburg.de (mx1.uni-regensburg.de [IPv6:2001:638:a05:137:165:0:3:bdf7]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 71B303A0B73 for <ntp@ietf.org>; Sun, 1 Aug 2021 23:02:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx1.uni-regensburg.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 80FA06000057 for <ntp@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Aug 2021 08:02:19 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from gwsmtp.uni-regensburg.de (gwsmtp1.uni-regensburg.de [132.199.5.51]) by mx1.uni-regensburg.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id B0959600004D for <ntp@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Aug 2021 08:02:17 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from uni-regensburg-smtp1-MTA by gwsmtp.uni-regensburg.de with Novell_GroupWise; Mon, 02 Aug 2021 08:02:17 +0200
Message-Id: <61078A68020000A100042DD7@gwsmtp.uni-regensburg.de>
X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 18.3.1
Date: Mon, 02 Aug 2021 08:02:16 +0200
From: "Ulrich Windl" <Ulrich.Windl@rz.uni-regensburg.de>
To: <halmurray+ietf@sonic.net>
Cc: "ntp@ietf.org" <ntp@ietf.org>
References: <0BF45DD4020000B6D9D2816D@gwsmtp.uni-regensburg.de> <B12CD3320200005C6A6A8CFC@gwsmtp.uni-regensburg.de> <7A118BFE02000017AB59E961@gwsmtp.uni-regensburg.de> <87663447020000445AEBDC6A@gwsmtp.uni-regensburg.de> <FAD1C7620200006F824A10E1@gwsmtp.uni-regensburg.de> <31FF6970020000285AEBDC6A@gwsmtp.uni-regensburg.de> <9C21DF1F020000EB6A6A8CFC@gwsmtp.uni-regensburg.de> <D9104F8D020000FEAB59E961@gwsmtp.uni-regensburg.de> <610253DA020000A100042C8B@gwsmtp.uni-regensburg.de> <61025C79020000A100042C9B@gwsmtp.uni-regensburg.de> <2FCD5C39020000B9AB59E961@gwsmtp.uni-regensburg.de> <1E89B79A020000F55AEBDC6A@gwsmtp.uni-regensburg.de> <32C7A15902000060FDA5B133@gwsmtp.uni-regensburg.de>
In-Reply-To: <32C7A15902000060FDA5B133@gwsmtp.uni-regensburg.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ntp/Eob1jJQEy2VCwdONvAUUJRdqaAE>
Subject: [Ntp] =?utf-8?q?Antw=3A_Re=3A__Antw=3A_=5BEXT=5D_Re=3A_WGLC_on_d?= =?utf-8?b?cmFmdOKAkWlldGbigJFhbHRlcm5hdGl2ZeKAkXBvcnTigJEwMQ==?=
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: Mon, 02 Aug 2021 06:02:30 -0000

>>> Hal Murray <halmurray+ietf@sonic.net> schrieb am 31.07.2021 um 07:18 in
Nachricht
<20210731051805.C0C3128C157@107-137-68-211.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net>et>:
>>  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.

Hi!

I just wonder: Wouldn't rate limiting (or bandwidth limiting) be the correct
way to do?
I don't consider the smart solution to be smart actually.
Maybe even considering the input/output (request/response) ratio would be even
better.

Regards,
Ulrich


> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ntp mailing list
> ntp@ietf.org 
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ntp