[Ntp] Changing port 123

Watson Ladd <watson@cloudflare.com> Mon, 24 February 2020 17:09 UTC

Return-Path: <watson@cloudflare.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 4E8003A0E40 for <ntp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 Feb 2020 09:09:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.1
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cloudflare.com
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 Q51VU4oJTIzd for <ntp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 Feb 2020 09:09:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qk1-x72c.google.com (mail-qk1-x72c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::72c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2629B3A0D4B for <ntp@ietf.org>; Mon, 24 Feb 2020 09:09:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qk1-x72c.google.com with SMTP id u124so9284354qkh.13 for <ntp@ietf.org>; Mon, 24 Feb 2020 09:09:29 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cloudflare.com; s=google; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=xlpVYX2R3muy0rKp3Lo5tXtANqFhMIoa46kPrEw2Cr4=; b=D8fIhKSwnYfQmnujS5ToUoAKS401doHE4XAdqF17e+EaDZ9C2CWvDKAhWpeBfAxAyU a61ArzN70L+eAyWxA5xoSZau4gRMAnN86QSJA8kn/XXpN0khSppLLa3PPb3OxbBAPLSf 9pcu9WOGTqBL75NhirbJfVcCbmDHP959iPBnY=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=xlpVYX2R3muy0rKp3Lo5tXtANqFhMIoa46kPrEw2Cr4=; b=L6NrRyxnYbqH7rDaW6I1AfN1dvbrsRnf5K2CkiTObASMKbo5DMdP+k6j4llA3lkJR2 jp6pXnzDWhGzcvebgZzB3msO2rnNud1k+RrbtCnN/OYMHauU1fUTFyOzxpqnLSfaVVK8 Ib5fwI8fWlPg9pV2+UwEHjDnUtvZR7xGwW+yRrACW9EHjXXY2gtfM9c3gMsvPR1ZfVDE EqaJPcvS7DH7lAcDhIICrJvJvgxXcB6HkN+v+6hWCxK6oBYBUXp0rsg0QGklFf4wfB6V RODTD9BOI3Q3zBJZ6UfVJSjE02NPiHljeQ/EFvl2aRnCXTQajl8BCKs4FhRcwe0o8fw1 wumQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAW2/4nZ4VBGW/eWuDhf6Cdsg6k/c86ghLAv3vyiNLv6QXsYQkB+ dBH6oMjyuh6JjO9MBXIHhluQ/LtU+Ym4FLNSqSCF7Uxx/7c=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxMzhO5DeJEDMnN5bvGdRlVvd0CQG4RDuC9YVt0o1JJgk4CO/mretdMbwEZUcvafd9cak7HOYYf0WwuV2aDYJY=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:c:: with SMTP id j12mr28592701qki.356.1582564167988; Mon, 24 Feb 2020 09:09:27 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Watson Ladd <watson@cloudflare.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2020 09:09:17 -0800
Message-ID: <CAN2QdAEo-70coXwWtxbS=mdsH0WmFPDkTaUkAeJA=5oARQGjOA@mail.gmail.com>
To: NTP WG <ntp@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ntp/oAy6tAOngHn_q9iJz2WahW8A5fU>
Subject: [Ntp] Changing port 123
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, 24 Feb 2020 17:09:30 -0000

Unfortunately it seems that port 123 cannot be extended in any way,
shape, or form.

I'd like to recommend that operators advertise an alternate port for
NTS via the NTS-KE port advertisement. Given the extent of the
problems reported I don't think port 123 will ever work, unless we get
network operators to not do length based blocking (very unlikely).

Sincerely,
Watson Ladd