Subject: Re: [dhcwg] [ntpwg] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-ogud-dhc-udp-time-option-01.txt

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2013 15:04:54 -0500

On Dec 2, 2013, at 1:56 PM, Hal Murray <[email-masked]> wrote:
> [email-masked] said:
> [Context is NTP servers next to root DNS servers.]
>> History suggests otherwise.   If an IP address is hardcoded, it will get
>> pummeled by devices that are too dumb to give up. 
> 
> That's why I was suggesting a crappy clock.  Can we get something that is 
> crappy enough that nobody would use it for anything other than getting off 
> the ground yet still good enough for DNSSEC to work?

No.   Think about this seriously.   Who is going to tweak this?   The end-user?   This isn't realistic.   We had millions of home gateways DDOSing a university NTP server for years because the router vendor burned the IP address of the NTP server into the firmware.   I doubt anybody got decent time out of this arrangement, but nevertheless it persisted.

> Are there two layers of DHCP?  ISP to home router and home router to PC.

Yes.

> If ISPs ran NTP servers, say next to their DNS servers, could DHCP provide IP 
> Addresses for both DNS and NTP servers over both hops?

Yes.

> Is it reasonable to trust an ISP's NTP servers?

See my first response on this thread: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dhcwg/current/msg15039.html