Internet DRAFT - draft-mlichvar-ntp-alternative-port
draft-mlichvar-ntp-alternative-port
Internet Engineering Task Force M. Lichvar
Internet-Draft Red Hat
Updates: 5905 (if approved) Sep 16, 2020
Intended status: Standards Track
Expires: March 20, 2021
Alternative NTP port
draft-mlichvar-ntp-alternative-port-02
Abstract
This document updates RFC 5905 to specify an alternative port for the
Network Time Protocol (NTP) which is restricted to NTP messages that
do not allow traffic amplification in order to make NTP safe for the
Internet.
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 March 20, 2021.
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 March 20, 2021 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Alternative NTP port Sep 2020
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Alternative port - update to RFC 5905 . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1. Introduction
There are several modes specified for NTP. NTP packets in versions
2, 3, and 4 have a 3-bit field for the mode. Modes 1 (active), 2
(passive), 3 (client), 4 (server), and 5 (broadcast) 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 typically does not allow any traffic
amplification, i.e. the response is not larger than the request. An
exception is Autokey specified in RFC 5906 [RFC5906]. Autokey is
rarely supported on public NTP servers.
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.
Lichvar Expires March 20, 2021 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Alternative NTP port Sep 2020
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", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
2. Alternative port - update to RFC 5905
The table in "Figure 6: Global Parameters" in Section 7.2 of
[RFC5905] is extended with:
+---------+-------+----------------------+
| Name | Value | Description |
+---------+-------+----------------------+
| ALTPORT | TBD | Alternative NTP port |
+---------+-------+----------------------+
The following text from Section 9.1 of [RFC5905]:
srcport: UDP port number of the server or reference clock. This
becomes the destination port number in packets sent from this
association. When operating in symmetric modes (1 and 2), this
field must contain the NTP port number PORT (123) assigned by the
IANA. In other modes, it can contain any number consistent with
local policy.
is replaced with:
srcport: UDP port number of the server or reference clock. This
becomes the destination port number in packets sent from this
association. When operating in symmetric modes (1 and 2), this
field must contain the NTP port number PORT (123) or the
alternative NTP port ALTPORT (TBD) assigned by the IANA. In other
modes, it can contain any number consistent with local policy.
The following text is added to the Section 9.1:
Lichvar Expires March 20, 2021 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Alternative NTP port Sep 2020
The port ALTPORT (TBD) is an alternative port to the port PORT
(123). The protocol and the format of NTP packets sent from and
to this port is unchanged. Both NTP requests and responses MAY be
sent from the alternative port. An NTP packet MUST NOT be sent
from the alternative port if it is a response which has a longer
UDP payload than the request, or the number of NTP packets in a
single response is larger than one.
Only modes 1 (active), 2 (passive), 3 (client), 4 (server), and 5
(broadcast) are generally usable on this port.
An NTP server SHOULD receive requests in the client mode on both
the PORT (123) and ALTPORT (TBD) ports. If it responds, it MUST
send the response from the port which received the request. If
the server supports any extension fields in NTP packets, it MUST
verify that each response is not larger than the request, even if
the number of extension fields is constant and they have a
constant length.
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.
In the symmetric modes (active and passive) NTP packets are
considered to be requests and responses at the same time.
Therefore, the peers MUST send packets with an equal length in
order to synchronize with each other. The peers MAY use different
polling intervals (packets sent at subsequent polls are considered
to be separate requests and responses).
3. IANA Considerations
IANA is requested to allocate the following port in the Service Name
and Transport Protocol Port Number Registry [RFC6335]:
Service Name: ntp-alt
Transport Protocol: udp
Assignee: IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Lichvar Expires March 20, 2021 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Alternative NTP port Sep 2020
Contact: IETF Chair <chair@ietf.org>
Description: Network Time Protocol
Reference: [[this memo]]
Port Number: [[TBD]], selected by IANA from the System Port range
4. Security Considerations
A Man-in-the-middle (MITM) attacker can selectively block requests
sent to the alternative port to force a client to select the original
port and get a degraded NTP service with a significant packet loss.
The client needs to periodically try the alternative port to recover
from the degraded service when the attack stops.
5. Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank Daniel Franke, Dhruv Dhody, and Ragnar
Sundblad for their useful comments.
6. References
6.1. 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>.
[RFC6335] Cotton, M., Eggert, L., Touch, J., Westerlund, M., and S.
Cheshire, "Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA)
Procedures for the Management of the Service Name and
Transport Protocol Port Number Registry", BCP 165,
RFC 6335, DOI 10.17487/RFC6335, August 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6335>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
Lichvar Expires March 20, 2021 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Alternative NTP port Sep 2020
6.2. Informative References
[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-09 (work in progress), June 2020.
[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.
[RFC5906] Haberman, B., Ed. and D. Mills, "Network Time Protocol
Version 4: Autokey Specification", RFC 5906,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5906, June 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5906>.
Author's Address
Miroslav Lichvar
Red Hat
Purkynova 115
Brno 612 00
Czech Republic
Email: mlichvar@redhat.com
Lichvar Expires March 20, 2021 [Page 6]
