IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Ntp] Rate limiting: DDoS, KoD, Pool, NAT

Hal Murray <hmurray@megapathdsl.net> Tue, 08 December 2020 21:51 UTC

Return-Path: <hmurray@megapathdsl.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 D69053A11BB for <ntp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 8 Dec 2020 13:51:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 2.146
X-Spam-Level: **
X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.146 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, CTE_8BIT_MISMATCH=0.999, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR=1.951, PDS_RDNS_DYNAMIC_FP=0.001, PP_MIME_FAKE_ASCII_TEXT=0.11, 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 YRZOgvrU6UQQ for <ntp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 8 Dec 2020 13:51:35 -0800 (PST)
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 A88543A0AF9 for <ntp@ietf.org>; Tue, 8 Dec 2020 13:51:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from shuksan (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ip-64-139-1-69.sjc.megapath.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E75AD40605C; Tue, 8 Dec 2020 13:51:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Mailer: exmh version 2.7.2 01/07/2005 with nmh-1.3
To: Philip Prindeville <philipp@redfish-solutions.com>
cc: Hal Murray <hmurray@megapathdsl.net>, NTP WG <ntp@ietf.org>
From: Hal Murray <hmurray@megapathdsl.net>
In-Reply-To: Message from Philip Prindeville <philipp@redfish-solutions.com> of "Tue, 08 Dec 2020 12:44:49 MST." <FF24E723-C7BF-4B1F-AF34-0A250BA839AC@redfish-solutions.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Tue, 08 Dec 2020 13:51:29 -0800
Message-Id: <20201208215129.E75AD40605C@ip-64-139-1-69.sjc.megapath.net>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ntp/dNSj2EpszuCAoWdxJ5R1iFXsEXY>
Subject: Re: [Ntp] Rate limiting: DDoS, KoD, Pool, NAT
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, 08 Dec 2020 21:51:37 -0000

philipp@redfish-solutions.com said:
?> Client behind NAT box:
>>  Server gets address of NAT box.  That goes into cookie.
> Not necessarily.  Most services are oblivious to the fact that they’re being
> NATted.  I don’t think this should be any different. 

Sorry.  We aren't on the same wavelength yet.

The client is behind a NAT box.
When the server gets the request, the return address will be the client's NAT 
box.
That's what the server puts into the cookie.
The server doesn't know that the packet came from behind a NAT box.



-- 
These are my opinions.  I hate spam.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email