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

Heiko Gerstung <> Wed, 04 September 2019 10:05 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 630771200CE for <>; Wed, 4 Sep 2019 03:05:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.289
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.289 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_FILL_THIS_FORM_SHORT=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ucI8DtdTwYfu for <>; Wed, 4 Sep 2019 03:05:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0A7401200C1 for <>; Wed, 4 Sep 2019 03:05:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (unknown []) (using TLSv1.1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7440871C09E7; Wed, 4 Sep 2019 12:05:50 +0200 (CEST)
X-DKIM: Sendmail DKIM Filter v2.8.2 7440871C09E7
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;; s=mail201101; t=1567591552; bh=ZOWGYFnEAF0A9bNgLFTrj9VDEnIGUyNYZlLmbwscbqE=; h=Date:Subject:Message-ID:References:In-Reply-To:Mime-version:From: To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=LhelNxSiMcXJyHaMzJ/8kx0I10mWJfd9wVZll5rUST0Hc+3IACRqC1WxI7YlWUL+E 7j+y1h5S83K44sF9ZwBk/uUFUnsvaIu51FBLWnW4Nx4zIMaVFSHyyd4QKBNhNYF/GX 51QCMO0aVFQc9IZK2qteYBlKg13U7MDDJvh74Plw=
X-Kerio-Anti-Spam: Build: [Engines:, Stamp: 3], Multi: [Enabled, t: (0.000007,0.012782)], BW: [Enabled, t: (0.000007)], RTDA: [Enabled, t: (0.162446), Hit: No, Details: v2.7.55; Id: 15.1i6ttm3.1djtrphpt.2no4], total: 0(700)
X-Footer: bWVpbmJlcmcuZGU=
User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/10.1c.0.190812
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2019 12:05:47 +0200
Message-ID: <>
Thread-Topic: [Ntp] Antw: Re: Antw: Re: Calls for Adoption -- NTP Extension Field drafts -- Four separate drafts
References: <> <20190902095854.GC15024@localhost> <> <20190904095111.GJ15024@localhost>
In-Reply-To: <20190904095111.GJ15024@localhost>
Mime-version: 1.0
Importance: Normal
X-Priority: 3
Thread-Index: AZ2x3tU+MGQ3NGNiYTgyN2MxZTBhYw==
From: Heiko Gerstung <>
To: Miroslav Lichvar <>, "" <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.100.3 at server1a
X-Virus-Status: Clean
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Ntp] Antw: Re: Antw: Re: Calls for Adoption -- NTP Extension Field drafts -- Four separate drafts
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2019 10:05:56 -0000

Using a Ethernet mac address or an IP address will allow to identify a server if it is included in the "sync chain" data set, I therefore would definitively go for a random ID. I am not yet decided if it should be allowed to let the user assign a static ID via configuration as that would make duplicates/collisions more likely than the random ID approach. 


On 04.09.19, 11:52 "ntp im Auftrag von Miroslav Lichvar" < im Auftrag von> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 03, 2019 at 05:05:44AM -0700, Hal Murray wrote:
>> I think there are two approaches.
>> One is to use random data. The probability of a collision can
>> be made 
>> arbitrarily small by making the number of bits in the ID big
>> enough. That 
>> needs good randomness.
>> The other approach is to piggyback on some other scheme that
>> has already 
>> solved the problem.
> The former makes more sense to me. We don't need the ID to be
> static.
> Generating a random number on each start should be fine.
>> Can we assume that every server will have a globally routeable
>> IPv6 address? 
> No. IPv6 is not universally available. Address translation is
> common, so we cannot assume an IPv4 or IPv6 address is unique.
>> Can we assume that every server will have an Ethernet host address?
> The vast majority will, but I'm not sure we can rely on them
> being random.
>> In both cases, for multi homed servers, just pick one. After
>> that choice, 
>> it's an ID, no longer an address.
> Yes. And it's important that all clients get the same ID.
> -- 
> Miroslav Lichvar
> _______________________________________________
> ntp mailing list

Heiko Gerstung 
Managing Director

MEINBERG® Funkuhren GmbH & Co. KG
Lange Wand 9
D-31812 Bad Pyrmont, Germany
Phone:    +49 (0)5281 9309-404
Fax:        +49 (0)5281 9309-9404

Amtsgericht Hannover 17HRA 100322
Geschäftsführer/Management: Günter Meinberg, Werner Meinberg, Andre Hartmann, Heiko Gerstung


Do not miss our Time Synchronization Blog: 

Connect via LinkedIn: