[email protected] said: > This is an interesting idea, but wouldn't the server have to save the > incremental hash between client's requests? An NTP server normally doesn't > keep any state for clients and when it does (e.g. for monitoring and rate > limiting), it's all in a constant amount of memory to prevent DoS attacks on > the server. Clients that would benefit most from having timestamps > authenticated retroactively probably would be the ones that poll the server > least frequently and are most likely to have their state on the server lost.
I think it is worth thinking about that issue. Memory has gotten a lot cheaper since the early days of NTP. We now have problems with bufferbloat. I think the limit on dedicated public NTP servers in network bandwidth. A gigabyte or two would not be a problem. For non-public servers, either there aren't a lot of clients (small network) so the memory requirements won't be a problem when NTP is run in the corner of another server or there are enough clients so the total cost of having a dedicated server isn't a serious problem. The DoS problem gets interesting. Does the server need storage between NTP requests or just for a short time while getting started? -- These are my opinions. I hate spam. _______________________________________________ TICTOC mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tictoc
