Re: [Ntp] Antw: Re: Calls for Adoption -- NTP Extension Field drafts -- Four separate drafts

[Magnus Danielson <[e-mail]>]

I agree. If someone knocks on the door with v5 packets, reply in v5
form, if someone knocks on the door with v4 packets, reply in v4 form.
As people migrate to v5, they can start using all the benefits from it.

For loop-protection, keeping a list of nodes from the source is a very
easy base condition to avoid routing loops, since as an announcement
comes in, if none of the nodes in the list is oneself, you may use it,
where as if any of the nodes is oneself, a loop is for sure detected.

While the trace loop detection mechanism is sufficient in theory, it
does not completely solve all loop problems, as transient loops may
occur, but it at least avoids problems in the long term.

If I only had time to describe all the things I would do to enhance NTP,
it has a number of built-in assumptions which is not useful or correct.

Cheers,
Magnus

On 2019-08-28 13:23, Heiko Gerstung wrote:
> Why not define a method in v5 that not only protects against degree 1 loops but maybe also against degree 2,3 or n? 
>
> This is what I meant when trying to explain that we should not stick to the existing packet format with its shortcomings.
>
> Regards,
>    Heiko
>