On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 3:00 PM, Danny Mayer <[email protected]> wrote:

> On 4/5/2016 2:28 PM, Sharon Goldberg wrote:
> > Dear WG,
> >
> > To follow up on my comments on draft-stenn-ntp-suggest-refid-00 at the
> > IETF'95 WG meeting just now. The current draft requires the use of an
> > extension field.  I believe the goals of the draft can be accomplished
> > without using an extension field, in a backwards compatible fashion.
> >
> > The goal of the draft is to limit the information exposed by the REFID
> > while still preserving robustness to "length-1" timing loops where
> > system A takes time from system B, but system B takes time from system
> A. Â
> > This proposal allow system A to limit the info it leaks in its refID,
> > without harming any of its legacy clients.Â
> >
> > Suppose system A is taking time from system B. Then there are two cases:
> > 1) If A gets a time query from system B, A puts the IP of B in the refID
> > of its response. This way, even a legacy B can tell it cannot take time
> > from A because this would cause a timing loop.
> >
> > 2) If A gets a time query from system C, A puts a "nonsense" value in
> > its refID.  Even a legacy C can see that its IP is not in the refID,
> > and so it is allowed to take time from A.Â
> >
> > One question is what this "nonsense" value should be.  I think it
> > should be a fixed value. For example 0.0.0.0.  We would not want a
> > randomly-chosen value since this might collide with actual IP addresses
> > on the network.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Sharon
>
> The problem that I was alluding to in the jabber room is this. I'll keep
> the problem simple and to one example.
>
> A takes its time from B over an IPv4 address. A then gets a time query
> from C over IPv6. How does it know if B and C are the same system or
> different system? A has no information about that.
>
> Is this clearer?
>
> Yes, it's clear. How does the current ntpd implementation deal with this
problem?

Sharon



-- 
Sharon Goldberg
Computer Science, Boston University
http://www.cs.bu.edu/~goldbe
_______________________________________________
TICTOC mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tictoc

Reply via email to