Re: [Ntp] NAT devices not translating privileged ports

Hal Murray <halmurray+ietf@sonic.net> Thu, 10 June 2021 17:46 UTC

Return-Path: <halmurray+ietf@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 B862E3A1004 for <ntp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Jun 2021 10:46:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.036
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.036 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR=1.951, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.982, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
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 Vo8SJqBGc9sD for <ntp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Jun 2021 10:46:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ip-64-139-1-69.sjc.megapath.net (ip-64-139-1-69.sjc.megapath.net [64.139.1.69]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 774213A0FF7 for <ntp@ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Jun 2021 10:46:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from shuksan (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ip-64-139-1-69.sjc.megapath.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F6AB40605C; Thu, 10 Jun 2021 10:46:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Mailer: exmh version 2.7.2 01/07/2005 with nmh-1.3
To: Fernando Gont <fernando.gont=40edgeuno.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
cc: "ntp@ietf.org" <ntp@ietf.org>, Hal Murray <halmurray+ietf@sonic.net>
From: Hal Murray <halmurray+ietf@sonic.net>
In-Reply-To: Message from Fernando Gont <fernando.gont=40edgeuno.com@dmarc.ietf.org> of "Thu, 10 Jun 2021 09:37:43 -0000." <65698f4e5c19022dbfce4de37671b9744c44bdd9.camel@edgeuno.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2021 10:46:24 -0700
Message-Id: <20210610174624.7F6AB40605C@ip-64-139-1-69.sjc.megapath.net>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ntp/Y-V15S-8yFTPTbBev0FiU6e06BU>
Subject: Re: [Ntp] NAT devices not translating privileged ports
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, 10 Jun 2021 17:46:31 -0000

fernando.gont=40edgeuno.com@dmarc.ietf.org said:
> I'm now considering whether we'd be better off removing the whole Section
> 3.4.? i.e., remove this: 

I agree that we could drop it, but it I didn't know about that quirk and it 
seems a shame to discard information that isn't otherwise documented or well 
known.

Maybe move it to an appendix?

Does any NTP code depend on the source port being 123?  I think NTPsec has an 
option to require it but I've never used it.  It might be useful to filter out 
broken software but won't help with security.


-- 
These are my opinions.  I hate spam.