Re: [Ntp] NTS4UPTP Rev 03 - Formal request for WG adoption

Danny Mayer <mayer@pdmconsulting.net> Tue, 01 June 2021 18:49 UTC

Return-Path: <mayer@pdmconsulting.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 3AED73A2364 for <ntp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Jun 2021 11:49:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham 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 9kHH-O-quQ60 for <ntp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Jun 2021 11:49:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from chessie.everett.org (chessie.everett.org [IPv6:2001:470:1:205::234]) (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 2F45E3A2365 for <ntp@ietf.org>; Tue, 1 Jun 2021 11:49:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from newusers-MBP.fios-router.home (pool-108-26-179-179.bstnma.fios.verizon.net [108.26.179.179]) (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 chessie.everett.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4Fvh5T268fzMNLL; Tue, 1 Jun 2021 18:49:01 +0000 (UTC)
To: Daniel Franke <dfoxfranke@gmail.com>
Cc: Heiko Gerstung <heiko.gerstung=40meinberg.de@dmarc.ietf.org>, Miroslav Lichvar <mlichvar@redhat.com>, NTP WG <ntp@ietf.org>
References: <7F9B8D13-BC90-4E15-9BDF-81714DF0F0C6@meinberg.de> <YLYCLIEA4/unB6/5@localhost> <1DAA3605-CC04-46DE-8CFC-975BED7D4160@meinberg.de> <YLYheZYTSflAdlrF@localhost> <CEB3F4AA-E318-4540-BD6C-4437E3F5F58A@meinberg.de> <YLY3f2/5k1Hjebf7@localhost> <7167BC2B-1889-4DF5-AF7C-BAAAB3586841@meinberg.de> <YLZVS4jwGOnMIk6g@localhost> <8f89741a-dd69-e688-5954-f222ab7652ac@pdmconsulting.net> <CAJm83bDf0966xLo2sXfg5jwN7yVZkVx1z8dNT-NW-dE3XdA4LQ@mail.gmail.com> <084b1615-9f01-ebc7-62d4-df1bd95820c1@pdmconsulting.net> <CAJm83bDk5=KNkB9=nkQSPHSNbMdYGEKTTi291JYr7F8+fL3rcw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Danny Mayer <mayer@pdmconsulting.net>
Message-ID: <cbc8973a-9f11-4080-f1a5-decc83e7ea45@pdmconsulting.net>
Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2021 14:48:59 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.10.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAJm83bDk5=KNkB9=nkQSPHSNbMdYGEKTTi291JYr7F8+fL3rcw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------EE3DE890966C342CE11D4EFF"
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ntp/aogXEpNaf3JbWULL3EprBVEWe1Q>
Subject: Re: [Ntp] NTS4UPTP Rev 03 - Formal request for WG adoption
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: Tue, 01 Jun 2021 18:49:09 -0000

That ignores the fact that you are bombarding the servers with requests 
at a very high rate. There's a very good reason why we implemented KOD 
packets. You wouldn't want to put any of those responses through a filter.

Danny

On 6/1/21 2:03 PM, Daniel Franke wrote:
> Depends on your clock discipline algorithm. Yes, if you feed an 
> excessive number of samples into a underdamped PLL then your clock is 
> just going to bounce around a lot without ever getting more accurate. 
> But e.g. a Kalman filter should happily slurp up as many samples as 
> you throw at it. Having more information can't be bad unless you use 
> it badly.
>
> On Tue, Jun 1, 2021, 13:54 Danny Mayer <mayer@pdmconsulting.net 
> <mailto:mayer@pdmconsulting.net>> wrote:
>
>     Noone should be using a polling interval that small. Oversampling
>     is as bad as undersampling.
>
>     Danny
>
>     On 6/1/21 1:28 PM, Daniel Franke wrote:
>>     It's in units of log2(seconds) so a negative value makes fine
>>     sense. E.g. -1 means half a second.
>>
>>     On Tue, Jun 1, 2021, 13:24 Danny Mayer <mayer@pdmconsulting.net
>>     <mailto:mayer@pdmconsulting.net>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>         On 6/1/21 11:42 AM, Miroslav Lichvar wrote:
>>         >
>>         > I'm not sure I follow here. You can send NTP requests at
>>         any rate you
>>         > like. That doesn't require a new protocol. The poll field
>>         is a signed
>>         > 8-bit integer if you had a server that actually looked in
>>         the content
>>         > of the field.
>>
>>         I hope not. How would you implement a negative poll interval? :)
>>
>>         It really should be unsigned. If not, then that's really an
>>         error.
>>
>>         Danny
>>
>>         _______________________________________________
>>         ntp mailing list
>>         ntp@ietf.org <mailto:ntp@ietf.org>
>>         https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ntp
>>         <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ntp>
>>
>>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     ntp mailing list
>>     ntp@ietf.org  <mailto:ntp@ietf.org>
>>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ntp  <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ntp>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ntp mailing list
> ntp@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ntp