IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Ntp] CLOCK_TAI (was NTPv5: big picture)

Paul Gear <ntp@libertysys.com.au> Thu, 07 January 2021 09:17 UTC

Return-Path: <ntp@libertysys.com.au>
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 E636C3A0C6D for <ntp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Jan 2021 01:17:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 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, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=libertysys.com.au
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 cn2tXyBaQi-5 for <ntp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Jan 2021 01:17:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.libertysys.com.au (ppp178-79.static.internode.on.net [150.101.178.79]) (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 9BD203A0C67 for <ntp@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Jan 2021 01:17:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.libertysys.com.au (Postfix) with ESMTP id E986B1805F4 for <ntp@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Jan 2021 19:17:12 +1000 (AEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at mail2.gear.dyndns.org
Received: from mail.libertysys.com.au ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.gear.dyndns.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id htVU-k6BgFUp for <ntp@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Jan 2021 19:17:07 +1000 (AEST)
Received: from [IPv6:2001:44b8:2100:3f40:98a3:b4a2:f254:6dd7] (unknown [IPv6:2001:44b8:2100:3f40:98a3:b4a2:f254:6dd7]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.libertysys.com.au (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7EB521801E0 for <ntp@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Jan 2021 19:17:07 +1000 (AEST)
Authentication-Results: mail.libertysys.com.au; dmarc=fail (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=libertysys.com.au
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=libertysys.com.au; s=2016; t=1610011027; bh=w0aOnyws7AHgAbpt6GYNm0Zay+Dm9s9iwOvMxpN2JC0=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=gCqrkq9o0nYxUF6BHW/dHXngZrvS+Jvww+1ysbQ4/lkC7P61uSHYC7OAlh2TwnbJp M9TKsS++P01DrtJlYRY1friNAlC7smuo8N0UkEgTsLIw/5tCKky6E4xgtecEYvqrZa ahZ5vDvfyzqdqIlqkejHRm5MWrVo6MBl1DU00VqY=
To: ntp@ietf.org
References: <20210105124544.5EF5C40605C@ip-64-139-1-69.sjc.megapath.net> <f876a3ff-16ee-fc63-c27c-d5a3cb847a3d@meinberg.de> <59A706AB-A151-4779-989B-B957F2C50FD0@redfish-solutions.com> <f6871e77-7130-0234-b30f-a1efd7fc501d@meinberg.de> <5d9b2399-dbb4-99c8-4495-69ad03479a23@thalesgroup.com> <c28ac809-1d5b-0e1d-48fa-88d4c45d870b@meinberg.de>
From: Paul Gear <ntp@libertysys.com.au>
Message-ID: <68217bb3-0aa8-c913-6f2e-1d7b4a9aca5b@libertysys.com.au>
Date: Thu, 07 Jan 2021 19:17:06 +1000
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <c28ac809-1d5b-0e1d-48fa-88d4c45d870b@meinberg.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-AU
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ntp/Rxq08rDxvz7O6TH7Ln4f9OE4ff8>
Subject: Re: [Ntp] CLOCK_TAI (was NTPv5: big picture)
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: Thu, 07 Jan 2021 09:17:17 -0000

On 7/1/21 12:29 am, Martin Burnicki wrote:
> FUSTE Emmanuel wrote:
>> Le 06/01/2021 à 11:58, Martin Burnicki a écrit :
>>> Or you would have to provide (and maintain) an NTP server implementation
>>> that supports both v4 and v5, depending on the version of the request.
>> As the vast majority of today ones which still support v1/v2/v3/v4, 
>> being based on ntpd,  and v3/v4 for most of the others.
> I don't thing NTPv1 and v2 are really supported by current
> implementations, maybe except for a v2 version code in the mode 6 packets.
>
> If I remember correctly, NTPv2 wasn't even widespread, but some fields
> of the packet were changed in v3. When that happened, NTPv2 wasn't very
> widespread, either.
>
> The only thing a v4 server has to do to when it receives a v3 request is
> to copy the v3 version code into the reply packet instead of the native
> v4 code. That's it.
> ...


I just took a sample 10 Mb of traffic to one of my pool servers.

Total packets: 82092

v1 packets: 1240 (1.5%)
v2 packets: 10 (0%)
v3 packets: 18530 (22.6%)
v4 packets: 62312 (75.9%)

The server (ntpd 4.2.8p12+dfsg-4) responds to all of them with the same
version number as the source.

Regards,
Paul

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email