IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Ntp] NTS Pools

Miroslav Lichvar <mlichvar@redhat.com> Thu, 29 February 2024 09:34 UTC

Return-Path: <mlichvar@redhat.com>
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 A27D9C1519A6 for <ntp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Feb 2024 01:34:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.106
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.106 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com
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 NtMp_9VId6MX for <ntp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Feb 2024 01:34:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.133.124]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D7CC2C1519B0 for <ntp@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Feb 2024 01:34:25 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1709199264; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=Qop0ljlL+/2FVYMnRUgNzgI460qr996QxMJngpQ5UnI=; b=bibhMQ2OO7JbqYEULW3nVKdl2KUyXlBNPkSTgMr3zSoGJP6CtKwUqOpfNE74FiprSgTkSj ZlC5SEV01GJSdesGpREW/5LC7DAUHuOb+wn+r2lhi9aJTQEiShjUKSjwr+Aj47wp0d2ny6 ioAyk5BbYhBs8RohouMP2ESyHwbQ/bI=
Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mx-ext.redhat.com [66.187.233.73]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-500-7hfHfvmiMQKriFwMnaCwVA-1; Thu, 29 Feb 2024 04:34:19 -0500
X-MC-Unique: 7hfHfvmiMQKriFwMnaCwVA-1
Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx05.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.5]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5FF203814E92; Thu, 29 Feb 2024 09:34:19 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (unknown [10.43.135.229]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 11E851BDB1; Thu, 29 Feb 2024 09:34:17 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Thu, 29 Feb 2024 10:34:15 +0100
From: Miroslav Lichvar <mlichvar@redhat.com>
To: David Venhoek <david@venhoek.nl>
Cc: martin.langer=40ptb.de@dmarc.ietf.org, NTP WG <ntp@ietf.org>, Dieter.Sibold@ptb.de, Kristof.Teichel@ptb.de, Rainer Bermbach <r.bermbach@ostfalia.de>
Message-ID: <ZeBPl6e3WagHW1z4@localhost>
References: <OF2E6B0FFD.229AD710-ONC1258ACB.004EFEAA-C1258ACB.0050896E@ptb.de> <Zdx0Nst2_w1mEMKG@localhost> <CAPz_-SUSEDaFgfwvnm_FQ5M9jjAAp2Df3A7RTuYY2KPmSq5FkQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAPz_-SWTbMmkXc5SnJjehFBKqO4UugSh5SOLWnQX2BEhSZAqkg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAPz_-SWTbMmkXc5SnJjehFBKqO4UugSh5SOLWnQX2BEhSZAqkg@mail.gmail.com>
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.4.1 on 10.11.54.5
X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0
X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ntp/Y5997-uikxBAK9aZIaMjE4npXsw>
Subject: Re: [Ntp] NTS Pools
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: Thu, 29 Feb 2024 09:34:29 -0000

On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 09:35:05AM +0100, David Venhoek wrote:
> Rationale for the NTS-KE load balancer approach:
> Given these goals, I myself find the NTS-KE load balancer approach the
> most attractive. Requirement 1 limits the options to either Shared
> domain name, NTS-KE generating cookies or NTS-KE load balancer.

The trouble with the load balancing approach is that it's not
practical, at least I still don't see a good use case for it.

As your table shows, the computational cost of load balancing is
higher than the cost of the load-balanced service itself. It's better
to use all resources to serve NTS-KE and NTP directly. It's simpler,
and provides better performance. With or without load balancing, the
servers to which clients are making TLS connections need to share the
hostname.

-- 
Miroslav Lichvar

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email