[ntpwg] [dhcwg] NTP option: IP address and/or FQDN

[TS Glassey]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Richard Gayraud (rgayraud)" <rgayraud at cisco.com>
To: "Alain Durand" <alain_durand at cable.comcast.com>; "Danny Mayer" 
<mayer at ntp.org>; "MORAND Lionel RD-CORE-ISS" 
<lionel.morand at orange-ftgroup.com>
Cc: "DHC WG" <dhcwg at ietf.org>; "NTP Working Group" 
<ntpwg at lists.ntp.isc.org>; "Ralph Droms (rdroms)" <rdroms at cisco.com>
Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2007 11:10 AM
Subject: Re: [ntpwg] [dhcwg] NTP option: IP address and/or FQDN


Hello Alain,

This is not really different, but the impact of it will be less
important:

  - If an hardcoded NTP IP address is shipped within a SOHO thing,
    (as it happened in the past), then this IP address is dead,
    for good. Not usable anymore.

tsg: Amen.

    Also, I suspect routers on the
    path to this subnet are impacted, unless global internet
    routing tables are updated to drop this traffic upstream.

tsg: Yep...

  - on the other side. If a DNS name is hard-coded, this IP
    address and subnet issue can be avoided by removing the
    name from the DNS database.

tsg: The problem here then is that domain owner is permanently tied to that 
overhead and it will follow them forever like the bad IP address variant. 
Imagine if you would a domain name with a bre-built traffic overhead to its 
NTP and DNS server's based on a vendor's actions.

      . Clients are not supposed to re-query the DNS server
        every 2 seconds after the server replies the name is
        not resolvable.

tsg: And you want to rely on people to properly implement the standard? or 
abide by the rules? ... My DNS servers are still absorbing overhead and the 
IP addresses we ran the SJ server on are still slammed by bogus traffic so 
as someone who actually suffers from this I think the DNS traffic is much 
worst than you are painting it.

      . even if they do, the load will be distributed over
        multiple local DNS servers (instead of having a
        single victim IP address).

      . we hope that a poorly coded SOHO equipment will use a
        pool FQDN rather than a single NTP server name.

tsg: There is another issue to address and that is whether the publishing of 
the FQDN itself requires a copyright release. It may, and that would make 
this something that the NTP License would need to address. By the way - the 
reason the world can abuse the coding standard for NTP is pretty much 
totally because the use and deriviative license lets them do it.

I think other people gave other good reasons to use FQDN, but
I do not remember all of them.

Does this help ?

Thanks,

Richard.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alain Durand [mailto:alain_durand at cable.comcast.com]
> Sent: dimanche 9 décembre 2007 19:55
> To: Richard Gayraud (rgayraud); Danny Mayer; MORAND Lionel RD-CORE-ISS
> Cc: DHC WG; Ralph Droms (rdroms); NTP Working Group
> Subject: Re: [dhcwg] NTP option: IP address and/or FQDN
>
>
>
>
> On 12/9/07 10:16 AM, "Richard Gayraud (rgayraud)" <rgayraud at cisco.com>
> wrote:
>
> >   => But more importantly, this does not give any guaranty
> that a vendor
> >      will not ship a small home router with a DHCP server
> inside, with an
> >      embeded NTP server address => worst case.
>
> Excuse me if I'm just adding fuel to the fire, but I still
> fail to see the
> difference between a vendor shipping a home router with a
> DHCP server that
> has an NTP option embedding a hard-coded IP address and the
> same vendor
> shipping a similar product with a hard-coded FQDN...
>
>    - Alain.
>
_______________________________________________
ntpwg mailing list
ntpwg at lists.ntp.org
https://lists.ntp.org/mailman/listinfo/ntpwg