IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Ntp] Symmetric mode

Hal Murray <halmurray@sonic.net> Thu, 22 September 2022 06:31 UTC

Return-Path: <halmurray@sonic.net>
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 2C6C9C14CE3A for <ntp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Sep 2022 23:31:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.909
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.909 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 sIRyTrXvm5tf for <ntp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Sep 2022 23:31:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from d.mail.sonic.net (d.mail.sonic.net [64.142.111.50]) (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 6C2BEC14CE22 for <ntp@ietf.org>; Wed, 21 Sep 2022 23:31:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 107-137-68-211.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net (107-137-68-211.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net [107.137.68.211]) (authenticated bits=0) by d.mail.sonic.net (8.16.1/8.16.1) with ESMTPSA id 28M6VZIw005524 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NOT); Wed, 21 Sep 2022 23:31:35 -0700
Received: from hgm (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by 107-137-68-211.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6AD3328C1D8; Wed, 21 Sep 2022 23:31:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Mailer: exmh version 2.9.0 11/07/2018 with nmh-1.7.1
To: Harlan Stenn <stenn@nwtime.org>
cc: Hal Murray <halmurray@sonic.net>, "ntp@ietf.org" <ntp@ietf.org>
From: Hal Murray <halmurray@sonic.net>
In-Reply-To: Message from Harlan Stenn <stenn@nwtime.org> of "Wed, 21 Sep 2022 17:44:38 -0700." <68d4ea33-1071-e125-ae47-c806f860d846@nwtime.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2022 23:31:35 -0700
Message-Id: <20220922063135.6AD3328C1D8@107-137-68-211.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ntp/slwBiSOouFRjzaRcDMNkwpdxx6U>
Subject: Re: [Ntp] 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, 22 Sep 2022 06:31:38 -0000

>> Case 2:
>>    A:  peer B
>> Case 3:
>>    A:  peer B
>>    B:  peer A

stenn@nwtime.org said:
> What's the point of case 3?  Case 2 is the proper use of peer mode between A
> and B. 

Do you have a reference to any documentation along those lines?

Does Case 3 break anything?  What are the advantages of Case 2 over Case 3?

There are separate packet modes for the 2 cases so somebody thought Case 3 was 
interesting.

Using Case 3 allows restrict nopeer without poking holes.

If you are setting up 2 identical servers, having similar config files seems 
like a good idea.


-- 
These are my opinions.  I hate spam.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email