Re: [Ntp] WGLC on draft-ietf-alternative-port-01

[Erik Kline <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 6:53 AM Danny Mayer <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
> On 6/24/21 1:08 AM, Watson Ladd wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 23, 2021 at 4:30 AM Miroslav Lichvar <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> >> On Fri, Jun 11, 2021 at 01:36:03PM +0000, Karen O'Donoghue wrote:
> >>> NTP Working Group,
> >>>
> >>> This email starts a two week working group last call (WGLC) on
> >>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ntp-alternative-port/
> >> One thing that I'd like to specifically ask everyone to consider
> >> is the intended future of the alternative port. Do we expect NTP to
> >> fully move there at some point and keep the port 123 only for legacy
> >> implementations? Or should it always be just an alternative in case
> >> the port 123 is not working?
> > I do not think the situation with port 123 is salvageable. There is
> > too much blocking and other manipulation. I think this doc as is is
> > the only way forward.
>
> Using an alternative port will not fly. You need to remember that there
> are millions upon millions of devices out there that use port 123 for
> NTP. Don't expect them to change just because you wrote a document to
> say to use a different port. If you want to use a different port you may
> as well design a different protocol. The port number is baked in and all
> firewalls would need to be changed to accommodate this.
>
> I will need to read the document again and decide on my vote. I don't
> think that the consequences have been thought through.
>

May I recommend that we request an early Transport Area Review for this
document?  I'm happy to click the button myself.  They might have some
thoughts/advice on these issues.