[Ntp] Antw: Re: Antw: [EXT] Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-ntp-using-nts-for-ntp-27.txt

Ulrich Windl <Ulrich.Windl@rz.uni-regensburg.de> Fri, 27 March 2020 08:04 UTC

Return-Path: <Ulrich.Windl@rz.uni-regensburg.de>
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 287AD3A0F14 for <ntp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Mar 2020 01:04:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham 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 WaX9JniDMHJv for <ntp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Mar 2020 01:04:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx2.uni-regensburg.de (mx2.uni-regensburg.de [IPv6:2001:638:a05:137:165:0:3:bdf8]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 509B23A0F13 for <ntp@ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Mar 2020 01:04:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx2.uni-regensburg.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 0DA846000051 for <ntp@ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Mar 2020 09:04:45 +0100 (CET)
Received: from gwsmtp.uni-regensburg.de (gwsmtp1.uni-regensburg.de [132.199.5.51]) by mx2.uni-regensburg.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id EABF66000050 for <ntp@ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Mar 2020 09:04:44 +0100 (CET)
Received: from uni-regensburg-smtp1-MTA by gwsmtp.uni-regensburg.de with Novell_GroupWise; Fri, 27 Mar 2020 09:04:45 +0100
Message-Id: <5E7DB39B020000A100037F7E@gwsmtp.uni-regensburg.de>
X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 18.2.1
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2020 09:04:43 +0100
From: Ulrich Windl <Ulrich.Windl@rz.uni-regensburg.de>
To: ragge@netnod.se
Cc: "ntp@ietf.org" <ntp@ietf.org>, mlichvar@redhat.com
References: <158507294813.11622.18159158243943940302@ietfa.amsl.com> <20200325115834.GC25803@localhost> <74B1B8F5-5762-4AB1-B3F2-D5AC2BC325C1@netnod.se> <20200325145956.GF25803@localhost> <400E7210-ABB7-48F7-B52D-A69A96968255@netnod.se> <20200326095602.GB9039@localhost> <842BEA8F-35F7-41B7-8FEC-30515F88A60D@netnod.se> <20200326113745.GC9039@localhost> <97BDCE6D-205D-4727-A585-602AD141B245@netnod.se> <5022_1585231330_5E7CB5E2_5022_507_1_20200326140143.GD9039@localhost> <5E7DAC3D020000A100037F73@gwsmtp.uni-regensburg.de> <486E02C0-73F9-4689-A360-66768514CBFE@netnod.se>
In-Reply-To: <486E02C0-73F9-4689-A360-66768514CBFE@netnod.se>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ntp/nyCb9DWX4HMiHmGE4fx867G48gU>
Subject: [Ntp] Antw: Re: Antw: [EXT] Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-ntp-using-nts-for-ntp-27.txt
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: Fri, 27 Mar 2020 08:04:53 -0000

>>> Ragnar Sundblad <ragge@netnod.se> schrieb am 27.03.2020 um 08:53 in Nachricht
<486E02C0-73F9-4689-A360-66768514CBFE@netnod.se>:

> 
>> On 27 Mar 2020, at 08:33, Ulrich Windl <Ulrich.Windl@rz.uni-regensburg.de> 
> wrote:
>> 
>>>>> Miroslav Lichvar <mlichvar@redhat.com> schrieb am 26.03.2020 um 15:01 in
>> Nachricht
>> <5022_1585231330_5E7CB5E2_5022_507_1_20200326140143.GD9039@localhost>:
>>> On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 02:01:16PM +0100, Ragnar Sundblad wrote:
>>>> Oh, so you think there is a risk that both the KE negotiation works
>>>> and at least one NTP requests works, and soon thereafter the
>>>> connection breaks, frequently?
>>>> I am not sure why that would happen very often, but if it did, there
>>>> Should at least be 8 NTP requests (until the client has exhausted its
>>>> cookies) until it contacts the KE server again.
>>> 
>>> Rate limiting of NTP packets in some networks is a major issue, which
>> 
>> Maybe the next NTP specification should talk about the QoS bits.
> 
> I heard this story about a larger networking equipment company that had
> some internal bandwidth problems (quite surprisingly, but I suppose
> there was a good reason), so they started to use QoS internally, and
> priorities e.g. VoIP traffic to not have them break up.
> Since most of the employees were networking savvy, of course they
> started to run all their traffic from their own machines with highest
> possible priority. When they all did that, they were back where they
> had started.

That the issue with all priorities (like process priorities, print job priorities, etc.): You tell the system what you want, and the system tries to fulfill your request.
Probably the system only works if either it's all used by a single authority, or if priority is more expensive ;-)

On my personal home router VoIP has high priority, while file downloads do not. So _I_ can manage my bandwidth the way I want it. Once the packets go to the ISP, I don't hve control what will happen.
Still I think it's a concept that should be used, even if there is no guarantee that it's effective. (like the mouth-and-nose masks in time of Corona virus)

> 
> I think it is hard to make QoS work in anything but extremely
> controlled environments.

I agree that is MIGHT help ;-)

[...]

Regards,
Ulrich