Return-Path: X-Original-To: tictoc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: tictoc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8C921277C8; Mon, 25 Jun 2018 02:02:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] 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 1lTLxKXEfjJi; Mon, 25 Jun 2018 02:02:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rrzmta1.uni-regensburg.de (rrzmta1.uni-regensburg.de [194.94.155.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 760B4126CB6; Mon, 25 Jun 2018 02:02:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rrzmta1.uni-regensburg.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 1B9A25E086; Mon, 25 Jun 2018 11:02:20 +0200 (CEST) Received: from gwsmtp1.uni-regensburg.de (gwsmtp1.uni-regensburg.de [132.199.5.51]) by rrzmta1.uni-regensburg.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C07D5E029; Mon, 25 Jun 2018 11:02:19 +0200 (CEST) Received: from uni-regensburg-smtp1-MTA by gwsmtp1.uni-regensburg.de with Novell_GroupWise; Mon, 25 Jun 2018 11:02:19 +0200 Message-Id: <5B30AF98020000A10002C170@gwsmtp1.uni-regensburg.de> X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 18.0.1 Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2018 11:02:16 +0200 From: "Ulrich Windl" To: , Cc: "ntp@ietf.org" ,"tictoc@ietf.org" References: <803B2335-08E1-4FD0-914B-720F6250520F@isoc.org> <20180618095057.GA32057@localhost> In-Reply-To: <20180618095057.GA32057@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Disposition: inline Archived-At: Subject: [TICTOC] Antw: Re: [Ntp] WGLC for draft-ietf-ntp-mode-6-cmds X-BeenThere: tictoc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26 Precedence: list List-Id: Timing over IP Connection and Transfer of Clock BOF List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2018 09:02:24 -0000 >>> Miroslav Lichvar schrieb am 18.06.2018 um 11:50 in Nachricht <20180618095057.GA32057@localhost>: > On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 03:26:12AM +0000, Karen O'Donoghue wrote: >> Control Messages Protocol for Use with Network Time Protocol Version 4 >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft‑ietf‑ntp‑mode‑6‑cmds/ >> >> Please review the referenced document and send any comments to the mailing > list including your assessment of whether this document is mature enough to > proceed to the IESG. Please note that these messages of support for > progression to the mailing list will be used to determine WG consensus to > proceed. > > I don't know much about the protocol, e.g. how accurately it describes > what current versions of ntpd/ntpq/ntpdc use, but I think the document > should make it more clear that it is not recommended for new > applications. Should it be labelled as "historic"? > > The issue with amplification is a major problem. It is possibly the > most severe security issue NTP ever had in terms of damage. It's the > reason why some ISPs now block the UDP port 123 by default. If it > cannot be fixed, it should be deprecated. Hi! I think the reason for documenting mode 6 is exactly to teach those who block port 123 unconditionally (they did it here as well, breaking all the pool servers) how to block mode 6 (and 7?) packets only. Regards, Ulrich > > ‑‑ > Miroslav Lichvar > > _______________________________________________ > ntp mailing list > ntp@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ntp