Re: [Ntp] Antw: Re: Antw: Re: Calls for Adoption -- NTP Extension Field drafts -- Four separate drafts

Hal Murray <hmurray@megapathdsl.net> Mon, 02 September 2019 09:37 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 1FA5512012A for <ntp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Sep 2019 02:37:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.035
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.035 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR=1.951, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.982, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=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 0_Bel5EwATjm for <ntp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Sep 2019 02:37:53 -0700 (PDT)
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 03E3C120073 for <ntp@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Sep 2019 02:37:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from shuksan (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ip-64-139-1-69.sjc.megapath.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA05940605C; Mon, 2 Sep 2019 02:37:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Mailer: exmh version 2.7.2 01/07/2005 with nmh-1.3
To: ntp@ietf.org
cc: hmurray@megapathdsl.net
From: Hal Murray <hmurray@megapathdsl.net>
In-Reply-To: Message from "Ulrich Windl" <Ulrich.Windl@rz.uni-regensburg.de> of "Mon, 02 Sep 2019 08:35:58 +0200." <5D6CB84E020000A100033405@gwsmtp.uni-regensburg.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Mon, 02 Sep 2019 02:37:50 -0700
Message-Id: <20190902093750.DA05940605C@ip-64-139-1-69.sjc.megapath.net>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ntp/iTg5AHAck3S3SPn6YEUkV-W029c>
Subject: Re: [Ntp] Antw: Re: Antw: Re: Calls for Adoption -- NTP Extension Field drafts -- Four separate drafts
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: Mon, 02 Sep 2019 09:37:57 -0000

Ulrich.Windl@rz.uni-regensburg.de said:
> But remember that a "node" is NOT "an IP address". With multi-homed hosts you
> can have interesting synchronization loops... ;-) 

Is there a problem with using an IPv6 address to identify a system?  (if you are multi-homed, just pick one)

You have to skip over fe80::, Link-Scoped Unicast.  Are there other ranges?

There is some way to map IPv4 addresses to IPv6 if you aren't using IPv6.  RFC-1918 addresses won't be globally unique.  They should work if you are on an isolated network.  That doesn't work if you have more than one system going through the same NAT box.

Would it be simpler/cleaner to use an Ethernet host addresses?  (what are they called these days?)  Are there any potential cases where an NTP server wouldn't have one?


 

-- 
These are my opinions.  I hate spam.