Re: [Tsv-art] [Ntp] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-ntp-port-randomization-06

Hal Murray <hmurray@megapathdsl.net> Fri, 26 February 2021 20:30 UTC

Return-Path: <hmurray@megapathdsl.net>
X-Original-To: tsv-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tsv-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDAAF3A16B8; Fri, 26 Feb 2021 12:30:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.046
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.046 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR=1.951, PDS_RDNS_DYNAMIC_FP=0.01, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.982, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] 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 SSMKI20TtWYd; Fri, 26 Feb 2021 12:30:04 -0800 (PST)
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 D14DB3A16B6; Fri, 26 Feb 2021 12:30:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from shuksan (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ip-64-139-1-69.sjc.megapath.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2281440605C; Fri, 26 Feb 2021 12:30:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Mailer: exmh version 2.7.2 01/07/2005 with nmh-1.3
To: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
cc: "Brian Trammell (IETF)" <ietf@trammell.ch>, tsv-art@ietf.org, ntp@ietf.org, draft-ietf-ntp-port-randomization.all@ietf.org, last-call@ietf.org, hmurray@megapathdsl.net
From: Hal Murray <hmurray@megapathdsl.net>
In-Reply-To: Message from Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> of "Fri, 26 Feb 2021 15:00:03 -0300." <a2794c0c-5fa0-52fe-160a-1b970bea61b9@si6networks.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2021 12:30:03 -0800
Message-Id: <20210226203003.2281440605C@ip-64-139-1-69.sjc.megapath.net>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsv-art/CChAMAEn8WA_2oLhNc10HJaAqYQ>
Subject: Re: [Tsv-art] [Ntp] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-ntp-port-randomization-06
X-BeenThere: tsv-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Transport Area Review Team <tsv-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tsv-art>, <mailto:tsv-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tsv-art/>
List-Post: <mailto:tsv-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tsv-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsv-art>, <mailto:tsv-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2021 20:30:06 -0000

fgont@si6networks.com said:
> 1) There's only one implementation that I know of that uses the service
>     port as the source port of client requests. As a ressult, enforcing
>     such a rule would prevent all other implementations from working. 

One reason for doing that is to prevent 2 programs that adjust the clock from 
running at the same time.  If some other program is already using port 123, a 
second program will get an error when it tries to bind its socket to the 
already-in-use port.


-- 
These are my opinions.  I hate spam.