[ntp:questions] Peering and synching over multiple interfaces and subnets.
ulf.norberg at banverket.se
ulf.norberg at banverket.se
Mon Jul 2 12:37:58 UTC 2007
>> Because of all of the different subnets in this SCADA network (not
>> just around these servers) it is not possible to have the Stratum-1
>> servers reachable on each subnet. The security guys won't allow it.
>Why not? Don't they have enough work to do? There's no
>security reason for this.
Well, Steve asked me the same question.
Maybe I used the word subnet wrongly. I should maybe say virtual network
or even virtual private network (VPN). From now on I will use VPN.
The SCADA-system in question has a very strict security policy. It's a
nationwide system and the Swedish railroad would be in serious trouble
if the system went down. Therefore any communication between different
VPN's has to go via a firewall environment. Any other openings or
potential openings between the different VPN's are strictly prohibited,
so the 4 Stratum-1 servers that we use today can't be connected to more
than one VPN at a time.
>> Work is in progress to raise all our access routers to Stratum-2 and
>> to solve NTP redundancy for clients in need of more than 1
>You seem to misunderstand. Each system needs to have multiple
>servers - 3 or more. Anything less isn't useful. It's also
>useful to have those servers get their own servers from
>multiple different sources. If it's only getting from a single
>source it is not sufficient unless you don't care about accuracy.
I hope not.
Via the management VPN all core routers gets its time from the 4 S1's
and all access routers either gets their time from at least 4 core
routers or from the S1's. This was the only way we could find to
distribute time to all parts of the network and be able to serve all
VPN's and their respective subnets with NTP without having to go thru
the firewall environment, which would have been a bottleneck and a
In the core part of the SCADA-system the vital interface-servers gets
their time from 4 access routers (the ones we are about to raise to S2,
The several hundred RTU's (Remote Terminal Units) around the country
uses SNTP (not our choice) and they gets the time on the local LAN's
from their respective default gateway.
And yes, I do know that routers aren't optimized to handle general
services like NTP but for the moment we don't have much of a choice. We
are looking at upgrading our current S1's to something that has more
than 1 interface for NTP like Symetricom's new S-200 or Meinberg's M600
so we can connect them to more than 1 VPN without compromising the
security scheme. We also want to increase the numbers of S1's but it's
all about money and acceptance from the management.
>> It would be allot easier if the NTP protocol was VRF-aware. Something
>> to work on for version 4.3 ;-)
>I have no idea what you mean by VRF.
Virtual Routing and Forwarding. A technology for creating virtual
private networks. Best described by Wikipedia.
According to one of our router gurus it would be possible to let a
NTP-server serve multiple VPN's without the need of firewalls if the
NTP-protocol or, if possible, the NTP-servers where VRF aware.
Thanks for you patience
More information about the questions