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

["Ulrich Windl" <[e-mail]>]

>>> Miroslav Lichvar <[e-mail]> schrieb am 02.09.2019 um 09:59 in
Nachricht <20190902075944.GB15024@localhost>:
> On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 01:30:33PM +0200, Magnus Danielson wrote:
>> I agree. If someone knocks on the door with v5 packets, reply in v5
>> form, if someone knocks on the door with v4 packets, reply in v4 form.
>> As people migrate to v5, they can start using all the benefits from it.
>> 
>> For loop‑protection, keeping a list of nodes from the source is a very
>> easy base condition to avoid routing loops, since as an announcement
>> comes in, if none of the nodes in the list is oneself, you may use it,
>> where as if any of the nodes is oneself, a loop is for sure detected.
> 
> NTP clients can be synchronized to multiple sources at the same time,
> so it's not just a list ‑ it's a graph. In any case, this probably
> requires a new extension field and it could work equally well in both
> NTPv4 and NTPv5. I was hoping the suggested‑refid EF could evolve in
> that.
> 
>> If I only had time to describe all the things I would do to enhance NTP,
>> it has a number of built‑in assumptions which is not useful or correct.
> 
> Well, maybe we could start with a list of issues of NTPv4 to get an
> idea of what needs to be fixed in NTPv5 (and what just needs a new
> extension field)? I have a few items. I think we could use the NTP WG
> wiki.

I think such a list would be a good idea. Maybe even before actually wortking
on NTPv5, that list could be distributed in two sub-lists:

* issues intended to be fixed in NTPv5
* issues not intended to be fixed in NTPv5

That would make a good abstract for NTPv5 anyway ;-)


Regards,
Ulrich