Re: [Ntp] Antw: [EXT] Re: Quick review of WGLC for status change for draft‑ietf‑ntp‑update‑registries

[Miroslav Lichvar <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Aug 09, 2022 at 12:46:05PM +0200, Martin Burnicki wrote:
> Hal Murray wrote:
> > You haven't looked very hard.  Ballpark of 1% at pool servers.
> 
> Really v1 implementations that are decades old?
> 
> Or just the result of software developers that write their own NTP client,
> didn't look at the specs, and simply put v1 into the request packets that in
> fact have a v4 format?

A significant fraction of the NTPv1 traffic looks like this:

    xxxxxx.59313 > xxxxxx.ntp: NTPv1, unspecified, length 48
	Leap indicator:  (0), Stratum 0 (unspecified), poll 0 (1s), precision 0
	Root Delay: 0.000000, Root dispersion: 0.000000, Reference-ID: (unspec)
	  Reference Timestamp:  0.000000000
	  Originator Timestamp: 0.000000000
	  Receive Timestamp:    0.000000000
	  Transmit Timestamp:   0.000000000
	    Originator - Receive Timestamp:  0.000000000
	    Originator - Transmit Timestamp: 0.000000000

The mode field from the future NTP versions is 0, i.e. it's a valid
NTPv1 request. I guess it's a result of minimizing the number of bits
that need to be set in the message (only one). 

-- 
Miroslav Lichvar