[ntp:questions] Re: "Listen on" semantics

Harlan Stenn stenn at ntp.isc.org
Tue Sep 19 22:37:58 UTC 2006

There are mechanism issues here that are separate from policy issues.

As I understand it (and I am probably wrong on several of these points, but
hey, it's a start):

- We do not have a mechanism to specify exactly which interfaces we listen

- there are good policy reasons for this, and I can see that these policy
  reasons are not universal.

If we could tell ntpd to "not listen" to certain interfaces, there is no way
a Bad Guy could send packets to ntpd via those interfaces (regardless of
whether or not ntpd would be vulnerable to those packets).

If we could limit which interfaces an ntpd process listened to, it might be
possible to run multiple ntpd's on a box, with one of them in primary
control, and the others using something like a local refclock in 'prefer'
mode.  This might be a useful way to do some testing of ntpd.

There are pros/cons to additional flexibility, and it is Useful to discuss
and understand these tradeoffs.


More information about the questions mailing list