Re: [Ntp] Symmetric mode

Hal Murray <halmurray@sonic.net> Tue, 04 October 2022 11:57 UTC

Return-Path: <halmurray@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 384BFC15257B for <ntp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Oct 2022 04:57:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.609
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.609 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 jguDDYYFScMd for <ntp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Oct 2022 04:57:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from c.mail.sonic.net (c.mail.sonic.net [64.142.111.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CC97EC1522A8 for <ntp@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Oct 2022 04:57:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 107-137-68-211.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net (99-4-120-220.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net [99.4.120.220]) (authenticated bits=0) by c.mail.sonic.net (8.16.1/8.16.1) with ESMTPSA id 294BuxFQ017487 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NOT); Tue, 4 Oct 2022 04:56:59 -0700
Received: from hgm (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by 107-137-68-211.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B72D28C1D8; Tue, 4 Oct 2022 04:56:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Mailer: exmh version 2.9.0 11/07/2018 with nmh-1.7.1
To: Danny Mayer <mayer@pdmconsulting.net>
cc: Hal Murray <halmurray@sonic.net>, "ntp@ietf.org" <ntp@ietf.org>
From: Hal Murray <halmurray@sonic.net>
In-Reply-To: Message from Danny Mayer <mayer@pdmconsulting.net> of "Sat, 01 Oct 2022 15:34:20 -0400." <3d51fd9d-2e6d-bd4a-275d-952011d132cf@pdmconsulting.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2022 04:56:59 -0700
Message-Id: <20221004115659.7B72D28C1D8@107-137-68-211.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net>
X-Sonic-CAuth: UmFuZG9tSVYBRW2qyYQdw2bbukgOpmjcQhBH4H3NN9J1yHP7pOvg3Wj1Flvz1YeI3z1lZzedCC43JBZYPUjkX8+eS9w70IGe
X-Sonic-ID: C;FC31pttD7RGP7/C7R+6Zsg== M;kqYHp9tD7RGP7/C7R+6Zsg==
X-Sonic-Spam-Details: -1.5/5.0 by cerberusd
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ntp/dw7IGEJ5i4z_-0V2CVO_fH7uets>
Subject: Re: [Ntp] Symmetric mode
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: Tue, 04 Oct 2022 11:57:02 -0000

mayer@pdmconsulting.net said:
> That is an untrue statement. Symmetric mode uses EXACTLY the same bandwidth. 

We should be smart enough to figure out why we don't agree on this.  It is 
fact rather than opinion.

How many packets per polling interval do you see?

Maybe we are comparing apples to oranges.  Are we considering the same setups?

Here are my two cases:

First setup:
  In server A,s config
    server B
  In server B.s config
    server A

That gets 4 packets per polling interval, a client/server pair in each 
direction.

Second setup:
  In server A, config
    peer B
  In server B's config
    peer A

That gets 2 packets per polling interval, an active mode in each direction.
There is no reply right after the active mode arrives.


There is an alternate 3rd setup:
  In server A's config
    peer B
  In server B's config
    allow ephemeral setup

That gets 2 packets per polling interval, one active and one passive.
The passive is not a direct reply to the active.

The peer lines need a key or a disable auth and a restrict without nopeer to 
setup the ephemeral association.


Would tcpdumps help?


-- 
These are my opinions.  I hate spam.