IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Ntp] [tsvwg] Antw: [EXT] Re: [Tsv‑art] Tsvart early review of draft‑ietf‑ntp‑alternative‑port‑02

"touch@strayalpha.com" <touch@strayalpha.com> Tue, 07 December 2021 05:28 UTC

Return-Path: <touch@strayalpha.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 DFB623A10D6; Mon, 6 Dec 2021 21:28:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.318
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.318 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=strayalpha.com
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 ARt4vEsKr9gQ; Mon, 6 Dec 2021 21:28:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from server217-1.web-hosting.com (server217-1.web-hosting.com [198.54.114.226]) (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 425613A10DB; Mon, 6 Dec 2021 21:28:23 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=strayalpha.com; s=default; h=To:References:Message-Id:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To: From:Subject:Mime-Version:Content-Type:Sender:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id: List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=el0CAO1t9xdDKD9uo639/KmiR01HKq95lhJ/mMrla0o=; b=DykrE4Mtbd33izPgw/NiZFGpgU UGwx1rPk+O0X6/tdvCAaKsiWNO59mfuqZW4qsGoZcaKxhZKXMAu5Xb+ibbrctSVKlqqW2a+nut51j cR8TcZ2P2Xc515RsYwq0wr1WJuqFr+2JWizT+uIrPMaSkLVoYHnW8MIq4OK9w5CUAZs3nlJgFvSGr 4HU900FC8Q7ynNZo0Lbmn7gHDh7jeSq+Lb1aSjsZWS4/a4kAJEcrUp+LG6hbIyA6Iak7hJL8MOe4i m5PFMpxQrKuCGhkfY6qNdow6zabw3seJMkUSl8MaWrdmvkv5ptJPz14Yo5rGeJI+DLi/ZJ5O99Yzc VSFaOcgQ==;
Received: from cpe-172-114-237-88.socal.res.rr.com ([172.114.237.88]:54648 helo=smtpclient.apple) by server217.web-hosting.com with esmtpsa (TLS1.2) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from <touch@strayalpha.com>) id 1muT1U-007Gt0-Qu; Tue, 07 Dec 2021 00:28:21 -0500
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_4BD998D3-C271-4517-A356-0C3ECBF3AA0E"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 15.0 \(3693.20.0.1.32\))
From: "touch@strayalpha.com" <touch@strayalpha.com>
In-Reply-To: <8eb8b685-773b-0da8-588b-0eb9bef07fe8@lear.ch>
Date: Mon, 06 Dec 2021 21:28:12 -0800
Cc: Hal Murray <halmurray@sonic.net>, Miroslav Lichvar <mlichvar@redhat.com>, "Salz, Rich" <rsalz@akamai.com>, Ulrich Windl <Ulrich.Windl@rz.uni-regensburg.de>, "magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com" <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>, "ntp@ietf.org" <ntp@ietf.org>, "tsvwg@ietf.org" <tsvwg@ietf.org>, "iana-port-experts@icann.org" <iana-port-experts@icann.org>, "draft-ietf-ntp-alternative-port.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ntp-alternative-port.all@ietf.org>, "tsv-art@ietf.org" <tsv-art@ietf.org>
Message-Id: <2B8969A1-4723-4683-B198-56FF01B548D0@strayalpha.com>
References: <20211206190736.9A56E28C19B@107-137-68-211.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net> <8eb8b685-773b-0da8-588b-0eb9bef07fe8@lear.ch>
To: Eliot Lear <lear@lear.ch>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3693.20.0.1.32)
X-OutGoing-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.5
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - server217.web-hosting.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - strayalpha.com
X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: server217.web-hosting.com: authenticated_id: touch@strayalpha.com
X-Authenticated-Sender: server217.web-hosting.com: touch@strayalpha.com
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
X-From-Rewrite: unmodified, already matched
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ntp/M6rd7M-flvaUlO4XNOn-fz8klQk>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 07 Dec 2021 04:39:21 -0800
Subject: Re: [Ntp] [tsvwg] Antw: [EXT] Re: [Tsv‑art] Tsvart early review of draft‑ietf‑ntp‑alternative‑port‑02
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: Tue, 07 Dec 2021 05:28:28 -0000

FWIW, NTP has ample capacity to support new versions on the existing port using its version numbers. A new port is not needed for security as TLS use is already supported.

The issue here is firewall configuration, I,e., it is an operational problem, not a protocol design issue.

Joe

—
Joe Touch, temporal epistemologist
www.strayalpha.com

> On Dec 6, 2021, at 12:57 PM, Eliot Lear <lear@lear.ch> wrote:
> 
> Hal,
> 
> I understand the two step process.  What I'm getting at is that if you need a new port, then you might as well take a moment to think about whether you want a new protocol to go with it.  View it as an opportunity.
> 
> Eliot
> 
> On 06.12.21 20:07, Hal Murray wrote:
>>> Would you merge your authentication method into a single service or
>>> would you keep it separate?
>> I can't quite figure out what you are asking.
>> 
>> NTS is a two step process.  The first step is a key exchange using TLS.
>> That is complicated by including cookies so the server doesn't need any
>> per-client storage.
>> 
>> NTP has 2 modes for authentication.  One uses NTS and requires the above
>> setup dance before exchanging authenticated NTP packets.
>> 
>> The other uses shared keys where the keys are setup using some unspecified
>> out of band mechanism.  (NIST uses USPS.)  This is impractical for high
>> volume servers since is requires manual intervention by the server operator
>> for each client.
>> 
>> 
>> Do you mean would a fresh design use separate ports for authenticated
>> and non-authenticated NTP traffic?  I can't see any reason for that.
>> 
> <OpenPGP_0x87B66B46D9D27A33.asc>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email