Alternative NTP port
draft-mlichvar-ntp-alternative-port-00
This document is an Internet-Draft (I-D).
Anyone may submit an I-D to the IETF.
This I-D is not endorsed by the IETF and has no formal standing in the
IETF standards process.
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft whose latest revision state is "Replaced".
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Author | Miroslav Lichvar | ||
| Last updated | 2020-04-06 | ||
| Replaced by | draft-ietf-ntp-alternative-port | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-mlichvar-ntp-alternative-port-00
Internet Engineering Task Force M. Lichvar
Internet-Draft Red Hat
Updates: RFC5905 (if approved) Apr 06, 2020
Intended status: Standards Track
Expires: October 8, 2020
Alternative NTP port
draft-mlichvar-ntp-alternative-port-00
Abstract
This document specifies an alternative port for the Network Time
Protocol (NTP) which is restricted in modes in order to avoid
amplification attacks.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on October 8, 2020.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Lichvar Expires October 8, 2020 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Alternative NTP port Apr 2020
1. Introduction
There are several modes specified for NTP. NTP packets have a 3-bit
field for the mode. Modes 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 are used for
synchronization of clocks. They are specified in RFC 5905 [RFC5905].
Modes 6 and 7 are used for other purposes, like monitoring and remote
management of NTP servers and clients. The mode 6 is specified in
Control Messages Protocol for Use with Network Time Protocol Version
4 [I-D.ietf-ntp-mode-6-cmds].
The first group of modes does not allow traffic amplification.
(Explain why?)
However, the modes 6 and 7 allow significant traffic amplification,
which has been exploited in large-scale denial-of-service (DoS)
attacks over the Internet.
Over time, network operators have been observed to implement the
following mitigations:
1. Blocked UDP packets with destination or source port 123
2. Blocked UDP packets with destination or source port 123 and
specific length (e.g. longer than 48 octets)
3. Blocked UDP packets with destination or source port 123 and NTP
mode 6 or 7
4. Limited rate of UDP packets with destination or source port 123
From those, only the 3rd approach does not have an impact on
synchronization of clocks with NTP.
The number of public servers in the pool.ntp.org project has dropped
in large part due to the mitigations (citation?).
Longer NTP packets (using extension fields) are needed by NTS
[I-D.ietf-ntp-using-nts-for-ntp].
This document specifies an alternative port for NTP which is
restricted to the safe modes in order to enable synchronization of
clocks in networks where the port 123 is blocked or rate limited.
1.1. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
Lichvar Expires October 8, 2020 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Alternative NTP port Apr 2020
2. Alternative port
The port TBD is an alternative port for NTP. The protocol and the
format of NTP packets sent from or to this port is unchanged. The
port MAY be used in modes 1 (active), 2 (passive), 3 (client), 4
(server), and 5 (broadcast). The port MUST NOT be used in modes 0
(unspecified), 6 (control), and 7 (private).
An NTP server SHOULD receive requests on both the original NTP port
(123) and the alternative port (TBD). It MUST respond from the same
port which received the request. If a request is received on the
alternative port in a mode which is not allowed on this port, the
request MUST be discarded with no response.
When an NTP client is started, it SHOULD send the first request to
the alternative port. The client SHOULD be switching between the two
ports until a valid response is received. The client MAY send a
limited number of requests to both ports at the same time in order to
speed up the discovery of the responding port. When both ports are
responding, the client SHOULD prefer the alternative port.
An NTP server which supports NTS SHOULD include the NTPv4 Port
Negotiation record in NTS-KE responses to specify the alternative
port as the port to which the client should send NTP requests.
3. IANA Considerations
IANA is requested to allocate a (system?) UDP/TCP port.
4. References
4.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC5905] Mills, D., Martin, J., Ed., Burbank, J., and W. Kasch,
"Network Time Protocol Version 4: Protocol and Algorithms
Specification", RFC 5905, DOI 10.17487/RFC5905, June 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5905>.
4.2. Informative References
Lichvar Expires October 8, 2020 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Alternative NTP port Apr 2020
[I-D.ietf-ntp-mode-6-cmds]
Haberman, B., "Control Messages Protocol for Use with
Network Time Protocol Version 4", draft-ietf-ntp-mode-
6-cmds-07 (work in progress), November 2019.
[I-D.ietf-ntp-using-nts-for-ntp]
Franke, D., Sibold, D., Teichel, K., Dansarie, M., and R.
Sundblad, "Network Time Security for the Network Time
Protocol", draft-ietf-ntp-using-nts-for-ntp-28 (work in
progress), March 2020.
Author's Address
Miroslav Lichvar
Red Hat
Purkynova 115
Brno 612 00
Czech Republic
Email: mlichvar@redhat.com
Lichvar Expires October 8, 2020 [Page 4]