Re: [TICTOC] [ntpwg] WGLC on NTS: Why not run over IPsec?

Hal Murray <hmurray@megapathdsl.net> Wed, 30 March 2016 09:04 UTC

Return-Path: <hmurray@megapathdsl.net>
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 B9BC112DFE5 for <tictoc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Mar 2016 02:04:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.033
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.033 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR=1.951, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.982] autolearn=no 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 ninwX0PaCqt2 for <tictoc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Mar 2016 02:04:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ip-64-139-1-69.sjc.megapath.net (ip-64-139-1-69.sjc.megapath.net [64.139.1.69]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D371712DDF6 for <tictoc@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 Mar 2016 02:03:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from shuksan (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ip-64-139-1-69.sjc.megapath.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D750406076; Wed, 30 Mar 2016 02:03:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Mailer: exmh version 2.7.2 01/07/2005 with nmh-1.3
To: kristof.teichel@ptb.de
From: Hal Murray <hmurray@megapathdsl.net>
In-Reply-To: Message from kristof.teichel@ptb.de of "Wed, 30 Mar 2016 10:14:18 +0200." <OFAFA01462.1493B5BE-ONC1257F86.002D4154-C1257F86.002D4157@ptb.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2016 02:03:33 -0700
Message-Id: <20160330090333.6D750406076@ip-64-139-1-69.sjc.megapath.net>
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tictoc/wcJsnLkRsEWDvFqcdWoX3VIXsyw>
Cc: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org, hmurray@megapathdsl.net, tictoc@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [TICTOC] [ntpwg] WGLC on NTS: Why not run over IPsec?
X-BeenThere: tictoc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Timing over IP Connection and Transfer of Clock BOF <tictoc.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tictoc>, <mailto:tictoc-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tictoc/>
List-Post: <mailto:tictoc@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tictoc-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tictoc>, <mailto:tictoc-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2016 09:04:18 -0000

kristof.teichel@ptb.de said:
>    Maybe someone would be interested in following up on this and write up a
>    paragraph about how best to use/configure IPsec to secure NTP traffic
>    (and possibly some pros and cons about doing this, too). This text
>    might, for example, be added to the Security Considerations of the NTP
>    BCP document.
>    What do people think about this? 

I think a BCP style writeup of how to use IPSec with NTP would be a good 
idea.  I assume it gets complicated if you don't have a shared key.

I think an overview document comparing various approaches for authenticating 
NTP would be a good idea.




-- 
These are my opinions.  I hate spam.