IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [ntpwg] [dhcwg] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-ogud-dhc-udp-time-option-01.txt

Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@nominum.com> Mon, 02 December 2013 20:05 UTC

Return-Path: <ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-ntp-archives-ahFae6za@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-ntp-archives-ahFae6za@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B61441ADF10 for <ietfarch-ntp-archives-ahFae6za@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Dec 2013 12:05:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.201
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 9LoMyHzQIfA4 for <ietfarch-ntp-archives-ahFae6za@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Dec 2013 12:05:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists.ntp.org (lists.ntp.org [149.20.68.7]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A8FD1ADF46 for <ntp-archives-ahFae6za@lists.ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Dec 2013 12:05:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists.ntp.org (lists.ntp.org [149.20.68.7]) by lists.ntp.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E61F86DAD5 for <ntp-archives-ahFae6za@lists.ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Dec 2013 20:05:05 +0000 (UTC)
X-Original-To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org
Delivered-To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org
Received: from mail1.ntp.org (mail1.ntp.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff7:1::5]) by lists.ntp.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD9F886D422 for <ntpwg@lists.ntp.org>; Mon, 2 Dec 2013 20:05:01 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from exprod7og101.obsmtp.com ([64.18.2.155]) by mail1.ntp.org with smtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.77 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>) id 1VnZjn-000FVt-MH for ntpwg@lists.ntp.org; Mon, 02 Dec 2013 20:05:01 +0000
Received: from shell-too.nominum.com ([64.89.228.229]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob101.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUpzn6zXwoFOqgyEugn96ByyxsQOChN7r@postini.com; Mon, 02 Dec 2013 12:04:59 PST
Received: from archivist.nominum.com (archivist.nominum.com [64.89.228.108]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by shell-too.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F0131B82C6 for <ntpwg@lists.ntp.org>; Mon, 2 Dec 2013 12:04:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-01.win.nominum.com [64.89.228.131]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by archivist.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03B63190043; Mon, 2 Dec 2013 12:04:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.3] (192.168.1.10) by CAS-01.WIN.NOMINUM.COM (192.168.1.100) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Mon, 2 Dec 2013 12:04:58 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.0 \(1822\))
From: Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@nominum.com>
In-Reply-To: <20131202185648.91031406060@ip-64-139-1-69.sjc.megapath.net>
Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2013 15:04:54 -0500
Message-ID: <19044894-42C6-498C-88E5-85FCAE4C5F00@nominum.com>
References: <20131202185648.91031406060@ip-64-139-1-69.sjc.megapath.net>
To: Hal Murray <hmurray@megapathdsl.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1822)
X-Originating-IP: [192.168.1.10]
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 64.18.2.155
X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: Ted.Lemon@nominum.com
X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on mail1.ntp.org)
Cc: NTP Working Group <ntpwg@lists.ntp.org>, "dhcwg@ietf.org WG" <dhcwg@ietf.org>, Bernie Volz <volz@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [ntpwg] [dhcwg] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-ogud-dhc-udp-time-option-01.txt
X-BeenThere: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Working Group for Network Time Protocol <ntpwg.lists.ntp.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.ntp.org/options/ntpwg>, <mailto:ntpwg-request@lists.ntp.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.ntp.org/pipermail/ntpwg>
List-Post: <mailto:ntpwg@lists.ntp.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ntpwg-request@lists.ntp.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/ntpwg>, <mailto:ntpwg-request@lists.ntp.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Errors-To: ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org
Sender: ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org

On Dec 2, 2013, at 1:56 PM, Hal Murray <hmurray@megapathdsl.net> wrote:
> ted.lemon@nominum.com said:
> [Context is NTP servers next to root DNS servers.]
>> History suggests otherwise.   If an IP address is hardcoded, it will get
>> pummeled by devices that are too dumb to give up. 
> 
> That's why I was suggesting a crappy clock.  Can we get something that is 
> crappy enough that nobody would use it for anything other than getting off 
> the ground yet still good enough for DNSSEC to work?

No.   Think about this seriously.   Who is going to tweak this?   The end-user?   This isn't realistic.   We had millions of home gateways DDOSing a university NTP server for years because the router vendor burned the IP address of the NTP server into the firmware.   I doubt anybody got decent time out of this arrangement, but nevertheless it persisted.

> Are there two layers of DHCP?  ISP to home router and home router to PC.

Yes.

> If ISPs ran NTP servers, say next to their DNS servers, could DHCP provide IP 
> Addresses for both DNS and NTP servers over both hops?

Yes.

> Is it reasonable to trust an ISP's NTP servers?

See my first response on this thread: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dhcwg/current/msg15039.html


_______________________________________________
ntpwg mailing list
ntpwg@lists.ntp.org
http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/ntpwg

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email