Re: [Ntp] Antwort: Re: Symmetric mode

Miroslav Lichvar <mlichvar@redhat.com> Thu, 29 September 2022 16:52 UTC

Return-Path: <mlichvar@redhat.com>
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 A53C3C14F748 for <ntp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Sep 2022 09:52:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.378
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.378 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.571, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com
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 exGGyiYxNgnG for <ntp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Sep 2022 09:52:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.129.124]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0013CC14F733 for <ntp@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Sep 2022 09:52:25 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1664470344; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=kHfPug3GK13YRc3gPB/hlvtgBJnlvsgUQpUZHAM1TEY=; b=ZenF8baHqzmzpXPKuwkuKbgWypGF6pnOv9Ozj7mA8ZWW0q9KDay0Xm/E3bIr1Kt1lScCvn TLCcfZ14mSdYzX4qyM/mPUZOgbPrA4wwktmixn010vKY2d29/gV6UyCiOihoDVd39nEa/N xFbf+caQHg9aIxSPRIB5n6w0wqsCgG4=
Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mx3-rdu2.redhat.com [66.187.233.73]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-391-4ClkHLoaOpu9a6jAFFc1GA-1; Thu, 29 Sep 2022 12:52:23 -0400
X-MC-Unique: 4ClkHLoaOpu9a6jAFFc1GA-1
Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx08.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.8]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8D1973806712; Thu, 29 Sep 2022 16:52:22 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (unknown [10.43.135.229]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EC9A6C15BAB; Thu, 29 Sep 2022 16:52:21 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2022 18:52:21 +0200
From: Miroslav Lichvar <mlichvar@redhat.com>
To: Danny Mayer <mayer@pdmconsulting.net>
Cc: kristof.teichel=40ptb.de@dmarc.ietf.org, ntp@ietf.org
Message-ID: <YzXNRa2Smcs5UsRb@localhost>
References: <mayer@pdmconsulting.net> <796c33e6-02dc-0665-c8a2-a143f9100bdd@pdmconsulting.net> <20220919024614.4AB8328C1E2@107-137-68-211.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net> <YygwAeTMeSHXXk6t@localhost> <OF42F0D0F6.E94FA935-ONC12588C3.005225C3-C12588C3.0054DC8B@ptb.de> <d13df0b6-7c47-820e-5dbd-21dd7e2d4801@pdmconsulting.net> <YywRhCmTD4mt8KTy@localhost> <9eac8a08-80d7-0d23-940a-d00c4bb2382f@pdmconsulting.net> <YzGErHj7nkt+Ehd8@localhost> <f28113c5-74ed-43a3-2982-ff9250facfb8@pdmconsulting.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <f28113c5-74ed-43a3-2982-ff9250facfb8@pdmconsulting.net>
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.1 on 10.11.54.8
X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0
X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ntp/lsUvVJybObMmBCRVZ30mtTCrHHY>
Subject: Re: [Ntp] Antwort: Re: 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: Thu, 29 Sep 2022 16:52:26 -0000

On Thu, Sep 29, 2022 at 12:11:51PM -0400, Danny Mayer wrote:
> On 9/26/22 6:53 AM, Miroslav Lichvar wrote:
> > The trouble is that the peer is doing both the client and server part
> > of the protocol at the same time.
> No, and that's the misunderstanding as explained in another message. It's
> either acting as a client or as a server but not both at the same time.

How would they decide which one is a client and which one is server?
The mode number is the same when both are active peers. That is the
point a symmetric association that both are client and server at the
same time and the reason why it is so difficult to implement and
vulnerable to attacks.

> > As you can see, there are 4 client/server mode packets per poll, but
> > only 2 symmetric mode packets per poll.
> 
> There might be a bug in the code, but you should see the same number of
> packets.

It's not a bug. It's by design. If the peers responded immediately, it
would create a flood of packets between them, saturating the network
or CPU.

In Figure 15 of the RFC (describing the state of two peers) you can
clearly see that there are only 2 messages per poll.


                t2      t3                 t6          t7
        ---------------------------------------------------------
                 /\         \                 /\            \
                 /           \                /              \
                /             \              /                \
               /               \/           /                 \/
        ---------------------------------------------------------
             t1                t4         t5                  t8


-- 
Miroslav Lichvar