IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Ntp] Symmetric mode

Hal Murray <halmurray@sonic.net> Sat, 01 October 2022 06:28 UTC

Return-Path: <halmurray@sonic.net>
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 6AE2FC14CE36 for <ntp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 30 Sep 2022 23:28:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.609
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.609 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LyN3GN7-Ya37 for <ntp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 30 Sep 2022 23:28:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from d.mail.sonic.net (d.mail.sonic.net [64.142.111.50]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1E612C14F75F for <ntp@ietf.org>; Fri, 30 Sep 2022 23:28:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 107-137-68-211.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net (99-4-120-220.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net [99.4.120.220]) (authenticated bits=0) by d.mail.sonic.net (8.16.1/8.16.1) with ESMTPSA id 2916SEDm030311 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NOT); Fri, 30 Sep 2022 23:28:14 -0700
Received: from hgm (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by 107-137-68-211.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0487428C1D8; Fri, 30 Sep 2022 23:28:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Mailer: exmh version 2.9.0 11/07/2018 with nmh-1.7.1
To: Harlan Stenn <stenn@nwtime.org>
cc: Hal Murray <halmurray@sonic.net>, "ntp@ietf.org" <ntp@ietf.org>
From: Hal Murray <halmurray@sonic.net>
In-Reply-To: Message from Harlan Stenn <stenn@nwtime.org> of "Fri, 30 Sep 2022 16:18:43 -0700." <415b7a7f-b9f6-8128-a9ae-467a93401945@nwtime.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2022 23:28:13 -0700
Message-Id: <20221001062814.0487428C1D8@107-137-68-211.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net>
X-Sonic-CAuth: UmFuZG9tSVb2Lnht11MwAEFPg/15o18MM8sDYu+9UIaBizupjlqPIcn1it/w0q9gMEhAtgcDFGGnVYCm7wNJwhm4RUuUAjPL
X-Sonic-ID: C;riZpOlJB7RGW+5ArP63e0g== M;tBJ8OlJB7RGW+5ArP63e0g==
X-Sonic-Spam-Details: -1.5/5.0 by cerberusd
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ntp/UllUUTkFA2y71kMh4Qj_Om0hcgg>
Subject: Re: [Ntp] Symmetric mode
X-BeenThere: ntp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Sat, 01 Oct 2022 06:28:20 -0000

> Peer modes (1/active and 2/passive) are for exchanging time between peers.

I can get the same results with a pair of client/server connections.  Right?


> Local policy choices include "do we want to use peer mode on any machines?"

Why would anybody choose peer mode over a pair of back-to-back client/server 
connections?


Is there any good reason that we should:
  include symmetric modes in NTPv5
  work on NTS for symmetric modes

The main reason not to is that it adds unnecessary complexity.

Symmetric mode uses half the bandwidth.  That doesn't seem important with 
modern network technology.  It might be important in some cases.  I wonder how 
many of those cases don't have a better solution.



-- 
These are my opinions.  I hate spam.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email