Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) M. Lichvar
Request for Comments: 9769 Red Hat
Updates: 5905 A. Malhotra
Category: Standards Track Boston University
ISSN: 2070-1721 April 2025
NTP Interleaved Modes
Abstract
This document specifies interleaved modes for the Network Time
Protocol (NTP). These new modes improve the accuracy of time
synchronization by enabling the use of more accurate transmit
timestamps that are available only after the transmission of NTP
messages. These enhancements are intended to improve timekeeping in
environments where high accuracy is critical. This document updates
RFC 5905 by defining these new operational modes.
Status of This Memo
This is an Internet Standards Track document.
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9769.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2025 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 Revised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the
Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described
in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
1.1. Requirements Language
2. Interleaved Client/Server Mode
3. Interleaved Symmetric Mode
4. Interleaved Broadcast Mode
5. Impact of Implementation Errors
6. Security Considerations
7. IANA Considerations
8. References
8.1. Normative References
8.2. Informative References
Acknowledgements
Authors' Addresses
1. Introduction
RFC 5905 [RFC5905] describes the operations of NTPv4 in a client/
server mode, symmetric mode, and broadcast mode. The transmit and
receive timestamps are two of the four timestamps included in every
NTPv4 packet used for time synchronization.
For a highly accurate and stable synchronization, the transmit and
receive timestamps should be captured close to the beginning of the
actual transmission and the end of the reception, respectively. An
asymmetry in the timestamping causes the offset measured by NTP to
have an error.
There are at least four
Four options where a timestamp of an NTP packet may be captured with
a software NTP implementation running on a general-purpose operating system:
system are as follows:
1. User space (software)
2. Network device driver or kernel (software)
3. Data link layer (hardware - MAC chip)
4. Physical layer (hardware - PHY chip)
Software timestamps captured in the user space in the NTP
implementation itself are the least accurate. They do not account
for delays due to system calls used for sending and receiving
packets, processing and queuing delays in the system, network device
drivers, and hardware. Hardware timestamps captured at the physical
layer are the most accurate.
A transmit timestamp captured in the driver or hardware is more
accurate than the user-space timestamp, but it is available to the
NTP implementation only after it sent the packet using a system call.
The timestamp cannot be included in the packet itself unless the
driver or hardware supports NTP and can modify the packet before or
during the actual transmission.
The protocol described in RFC 5905 [RFC5905] does not specify any
mechanism for a server to provide its clients and peers with a more
accurate transmit timestamp that is known only after the
transmission. A packet that strictly follows RFC 5905 [RFC5905],
i.e., that contains a transmit timestamp corresponding to the packet
itself, is said to be in the basic mode.
Different mechanisms could be used to exchange timestamps known after
the transmission. The server could respond to each request with two
packets. The second packet would contain the transmit timestamp
corresponding to the first packet. However, such a protocol would
enable a traffic amplification attack, or it would use packets with
an asymmetric length, which would cause an asymmetry in the network
delay and an error in the measured offset.
This document describes an interleaved client/server mode,
interleaved symmetric mode, and interleaved broadcast mode. In these
modes, the server sends a packet that contains a transmit timestamp
corresponding to the transmission of the previous packet that was
sent to the client or peer. This transmit timestamp can be captured
in any software or hardware component involved in the transmission of
the packet. Both servers and clients/peers are required to keep some
state specific to the interleaved mode.
An NTPv4 implementation that supports the interleaved client/server
and broadcast interleaved broadcast modes interoperates with NTPv4
implementations without this capability. A peer using the symmetric
interleaved symmetric mode does not fully interoperate with a peer
that does not support it. The mode needs to be configured
specifically for each symmetric association.
The interleaved modes do not change the NTP packet header format and
do not use new extension fields. The negotiation is implicit. The
protocol is extended with new values that can be assigned to the
origin and transmit timestamps. Servers and peers check the origin
timestamp to detect requests conforming to the interleaved mode. A
response can only be valid in one mode. If a client or peer that
does not support the interleaved mode received a response conforming
to the interleaved mode, it would be rejected as bogus.
An explicit negotiation would require a new extension field. RFC
5905 [RFC5905] does not specify how servers should handle requests
with an unknown extension field. The original use of extension
fields was authentication with Autokey [RFC5906], which cannot be
negotiated. Some existing implementations do not respond to requests
with unknown extension fields. This behavior would prevent clients
from reliably detecting support for the interleaved mode.
Requests and responses cannot always be formed in the interleaved
mode. It cannot be used exclusively. Servers, clients, and peers
that support the interleaved mode need to also support the basic
mode.
This document assumes familiarity with RFC 5905 [RFC5905].
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. Interleaved Client/Server Mode
The interleaved client/server mode is similar to the basic client/
server mode. The difference between the two modes is in the values
saved to the origin and transmit timestamp fields.
The origin timestamp is a cookie that is used to detect that a
received packet is a response to the last packet sent in the other
direction of the association. It is a copy of one of the timestamps
from the packet to which it is responding, or zero if it is not a
response. Servers following RFC 5905 [RFC5905] ignore the origin
timestamp in client requests. A server response that does not have a
matching origin timestamp is considered bogus.
A client request in the basic mode has an origin timestamp equal to
the transmit timestamp from the last valid server response, or the
origin timestamp is zero (which indicates the first request of the
association). A server response in the basic mode has an origin
timestamp equal to the transmit timestamp from the client request.
The transmit timestamp in the response corresponds to the
transmission of the response in which the timestamp is contained.
A client request in the interleaved mode has an origin timestamp
equal to the receive timestamp from the last valid server response.
A server response in the interleaved mode has an origin timestamp
equal to the receive timestamp from the client request. The transmit
timestamp in the response corresponds to the transmission of the
previous response that had the receive timestamp equal to the origin
timestamp from the request.
A server that supports the interleaved mode needs to save pairs of
local receive and transmit timestamps. The server SHOULD discard old
timestamps to limit the amount of memory used for the interleaved
mode, e.g., by using a fixed-length queue and dropping old timestamps
as new timestamps are saved. The server MAY separate the timestamps
by IP addresses, but it SHOULD NOT separate them by port numbers to
support clients that change their port between requests, as
recommended in RFC 9109 [RFC9109].
The server MAY restrict the interleaved mode to specific IP addresses
and/or authenticated clients.
Both servers and clients that support the interleaved mode MUST NOT
send a packet that has a transmit timestamp equal to the receive
timestamp in order to reliably detect whether received packets
conform to the interleaved mode. One way to ensure this behavior is
to increment the transmit timestamp by 1 unit (i.e., about 1/4 of a
nanosecond) if the two timestamps are equal, or a new timestamp can
be generated.
The transmit and receive timestamps in server responses need to be
unique to prevent two different clients from sending requests with
the same origin timestamp and the server responding in the
interleaved mode with an incorrect transmit timestamp. If the
timestamps are not guaranteed to be monotonically increasing, the
server SHOULD check that the transmit and receive timestamps are not
already saved as a receive timestamp of a previous request (from the
same IP address if the server separates timestamps by addresses), and
generate a new timestamp if necessary, to prevent an incorrect
interleaved response later.
When the server receives a request from a client, it MUST NOT respond
in the interleaved mode unless the following two conditions are met:
1. The request does not have a receive timestamp equal to the
transmit timestamp.
2. The origin timestamp from the request matches the local receive
timestamp of a previous request that the server has saved (for
the IP address if it separates timestamps by addresses).
A response in the interleaved mode MUST contain the transmit
timestamp of the response that contained the receive timestamp
matching the origin timestamp from the request. The server can drop
the timestamps after sending the response. The receive timestamp
MUST NOT be used again to detect a request conforming to the
interleaved mode.
If the conditions are not met (i.e., the request is not detected to
conform to the interleaved mode), the server MUST NOT respond in the
interleaved mode. If it responds, it MUST be in the basic mode. In
any case, the server SHOULD save the new receive and transmit
timestamps to be able to respond in the interleaved mode to the next
request from the client.
The first request from a client is always in the basic mode, and so
is the server response. It has a zero origin timestamp and zero
receive timestamp. Only when the client receives a valid response
from the server will it be able to send a request in the interleaved
mode.
The protocol recovers from packet loss. When a client request or
server response is lost, the client will use the same origin
timestamp in the next request. The server can respond in the
interleaved mode if it still has the timestamps corresponding to the
origin timestamp. If the server already responded to the timestamp
in the interleaved mode or it had to drop the timestamps for other
reasons, it will respond in the basic mode and save new timestamps,
which will enable an interleaved response to the subsequent request.
The client SHOULD limit the number of requests in the interleaved
mode between server responses to prevent the processing of very old
timestamps in cases where a large number of consecutive requests are
lost.
An example of packets in a client/server exchange using the
interleaved mode is shown in Figure 1. The packets in the basic and
interleaved modes are indicated with B and I, respectively. The
timestamps t1~, t3~, and t11~ point to the same transmissions as t1,
t3, and t11, but they may be less accurate. The first exchange is in
the basic mode followed by a second exchange in the interleaved mode.
For the third exchange, the client request is in the interleaved
mode, but the server response is in the basic mode, because the
server did not have the pair of timestamps t6 and t7 (e.g., they were
dropped to save timestamps for other clients using the interleaved
mode).
Server
t2 t3 t6 t7 t10 t11
Server -----+----+----------------+----+----------------+----+-----
/ \ / \ / \
Client
/ \ / \ / \
Client --+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+--
t1 t4 t5 t8 t9 t12
Mode:
Mode B B I I I B
+----+ +----+ +----+ +----+ +----+ +----+
Org
Origin | 0 | | t1~| | t2 | | t4 | | t6 | | t5 |
Rx | 0 | | t2 | | t4 | | t6 | | t8 | |t10 |
Tx | t1~| | t3~| | t1 | | t3 | | t5 | |t11~|
+----+ +----+ +----+ +----+ +----+ +----+
Figure 1: Packet Timestamps in Interleaved Client/Server Mode
When the client receives a response from the server, it performs the
tests described in RFC 5905 [RFC5905]. Two of the tests are modified
for the interleaved mode:
1. The check for duplicate packets compares both receive and
transmit timestamps in order to not drop a valid response in the
interleaved mode if it follows a response in the basic mode and
they contain the same transmit timestamp.
2. The check for bogus packets compares the origin timestamp with
both transmit and receive timestamps from the request. If the
origin timestamp is equal to the transmit timestamp, the response
is in the basic mode. If the origin timestamp is equal to the
receive timestamp, the response is in the interleaved mode.
The client SHOULD NOT update its NTP state when an invalid response
is received, so that the timestamps that will be needed to complete a
measurement when the subsequent response in the interleaved mode is
received will not be lost.
If the packet passed the tests and conforms to the interleaved mode,
the client can compute the offset and delay using the formulas from
RFC 5905 [RFC5905] and one of two different sets of timestamps. The
first set is RECOMMENDED for clients that filter measurements based
on the delay. The corresponding timestamps from Figure 1 are written
in parentheses.
* T1 - local transmit timestamp of the previous request (t1)
* T2 - remote receive timestamp from the previous response (t2)
* T3 - remote transmit timestamp from the latest response (t3)
* T4 - local receive timestamp of the previous response (t4)
The second set gives a more accurate measurement of the current
offset, but the delay is much more sensitive to a frequency error
between the server and client due to a much longer interval between
T1 and T4.
* T1 - local transmit timestamp of the latest request (t5)
* T2 - remote receive timestamp from the latest response (t6)
* T3 - remote transmit timestamp from the latest response (t3)
* T4 - local receive timestamp of the previous response (t4)
Clients MAY filter measurements based on the mode. The maximum
number of dropped measurements in the basic mode SHOULD be limited in
cases where the server does not support, or is not able to respond
in, the interleaved mode. Clients that filter measurements based on
the delay will implicitly prefer measurements in the interleaved mode
over the basic mode, because they have a shorter delay due to a more
accurate transmit timestamp (T3).
The server MAY limit the saving of the receive and transmit
timestamps to requests that have an origin timestamp specific to the
interleaved mode in order to not waste resources on clients using the
basic mode. Such an optimization will delay the first interleaved
response of the server to a client by one exchange.
A check for a non-zero origin timestamp works with NTP clients that
always set the timestamp to zero. From the server's point of view,
such clients start a new association with each request.
To avoid searching the saved receive timestamps for non-zero origin
timestamps from requests conforming to the basic mode, the server can
encode in low-order bits of the receive and transmit timestamps below
the precision of the clock a flag indicating whether the timestamp is
a receive timestamp. If the server receives a request with a non-
zero origin timestamp that does not indicate that it is a receive
timestamp of the server, the request does not conform to the
interleaved mode, and it is not necessary to perform the search and/
or save the new receive and transmit timestamps.
3. Interleaved Symmetric Mode
The interleaved symmetric mode uses the same principles as the
interleaved client/server mode. A packet in the interleaved
symmetric mode has a transmit timestamp that corresponds to the
transmission of the previous packet sent to the peer and an origin
timestamp equal to the receive timestamp from the last packet
received from the peer.
To enable synchronization in both directions of a symmetric
association, both peers need to support the interleaved mode. For
this reason, it SHOULD be disabled by default and enabled with an
option in the configuration of the active side of the association.
In order to prevent the a peer from matching the transmit timestamp timestamps with an
incorrect packet packets when the peers' its transmissions do not alternate with
transmissions of its peer (e.g., they use different polling
intervals) and a one or more previous
packet was packets were lost, the use of the
interleaved mode in symmetric associations requires additional
restrictions.
Peers that have an association need to count valid packets received
between their transmissions to determine in which mode a packet
should be formed. A valid packet in this context is a packet that
passed all NTP tests for duplicate, replayed, bogus, and
unauthenticated packets. Other received packets may update the NTP
state to allow the (re)initialization of the association, but they do
not change the selection of the mode.
A Peer A MUST NOT send a Peer B a packet in the interleaved mode
unless all of the following conditions are met:
1. Peer A has an active association with Peer B that was specified
with the option enabling the interleaved mode, OR Peer A received
at least one valid packet in the interleaved mode from Peer B.
2. Peer A did not send a packet to Peer B since the time that it
received the last valid packet from Peer B.
3. The previous packet that Peer A sent to Peer B was the only
response to a packet received from Peer B.
The first condition is needed for compatibility with implementations
that do not support, or are not configured for, the interleaved mode.
The other conditions prevent a missing response from causing a
mismatch between the remote transmit timestamp (T2) and local receive
timestamp (T3), which would cause a large error in the measured
offset and delay.
An example of packets exchanged in a symmetric association is shown
in Figure 2. The minimum polling interval of Peer A is twice as long
as the maximum polling interval of Peer B. The first packet sent by
each peer is in the basic mode. The second and third packets sent by
Peer A are in the interleaved mode. The second packet sent by Peer B
is in the interleaved mode, but subsequent packets sent by Peer B are
in the basic mode, because multiple responses are sent for each
request.
Peer A
t2 t3 t6 t8 t9 t12 t14 t15
-----+--+--------+-----------+--+--------+-----------+--+-----
Peer A -----+--+--------+-----------+--+--------+-----------+--+----
/ \ / / \ / / \
Peer B
/ \ / / \ / / \
--+--------+--+-----------+--------+--+-----------+--------+--
Peer B --+--------+--+-----------+--------+--+-----------+--------+-
t1 t4 t5 t7 t10 t11 t13 t16
Mode:
Mode B B I B I B B I
+----+ +----+ +----+ +----+ +----+ +----+ +----+ +----+
Org
Origin | 0 | | t1~| | t2 | | t3~| | t4 | | t3 | | t3 | |t10 |
Rx | 0 | | t2 | | t4 | | t4 | | t8 | |t10 | |t10 | |t14 |
Tx | t1~| | t3~| | t1 | | t7~| | t3 | |t11~| |t13~| | t9 |
+----+ +----+ +----+ +----+ +----+ +----+ +----+ +----+
Figure 2: Packet Timestamps in Interleaved Symmetric Mode
If Peer A has no association with Peer B and it responds with
symmetric passive packets, it does not need to count the packets in
order to meet the restrictions, because each request has at most one
response. The processing of the requests can be implemented in the
same way as a server handling requests in the interleaved client/
server mode.
The peers can compute the offset and delay using one of the two sets
of timestamps specified in Section 2. They can switch between the
sets to minimize the interval between T1 and T4 in order to reduce
the error in the measured delay.
4. Interleaved Broadcast Mode
A packet in the interleaved broadcast mode contains two transmit
timestamps. One corresponds to the packet itself and is saved in the
transmit timestamp field. The other corresponds to the previous
packet and is saved in the origin timestamp field. The packet is
compatible with the basic mode, which uses a zero origin timestamp.
An example of packets sent in the broadcast mode is shown in
Figure 3.
Server
t1 t3 t5 t7
Server ------+------------+------------+------------+---------
\ \ \ \
Client
\ \ \ \
Client ---------+------------+------------+------------+------
t2 t4 t6 t8
Mode:
Mode B I I I
+----+ +----+ +----+ +----+
Org
Origin | 0 | | t1 | | t3 | | t5 |
Rx | 0 | | 0 | | 0 | | 0 |
Tx | t1~| | t3~| | t5~| | t7~|
+----+ +----+ +----+ +----+
Figure 3: Packet Timestamps in Interleaved Broadcast Mode
A client that does not support the interleaved mode ignores the
origin timestamp and processes all packets as if they were in the
basic mode.
A client that supports the interleaved mode MUST check if the origin
timestamp is not zero to detect packets conforming to the interleaved
mode. The client SHOULD also compare the origin timestamp with the
transmit timestamp from the previous packet to detect lost packets.
If the difference is larger than a specified maximum (e.g., 1
second), the packet SHOULD NOT be used for synchronization in the
interleaved mode to avoid a large error in the measurement.
The client computes the offset using the origin timestamp from the
received packet and the local receive timestamp of the previous
packet. If the client needs to measure the network delay, it SHOULD
use the interleaved client/server mode. If it used the basic client/
server mode or symmetric mode, the less accurate measurement of the
delay would also impact the accuracy of the offset measured in the
interleaved broadcast mode.
5. Impact of Implementation Errors
The interleaved modes make NTP more complex and more sensitive to
implementation errors. Some errors that do not cause any problems
between implementations supporting only the basic mode can cause an
occasional missing or corrupted measurement when one or both sides
support the interleaved mode. This section describes the impact of
what could possibly be the most likely errors in the most commonly
used mode -- client/server.
If a client that does not support the interleaved mode sets the
origin timestamp to values other than the transmit timestamp from the
last valid server response, or zero, the origin timestamp can match a
receive timestamp of a previous server response (possibly to a
different client) and cause an unexpected interleaved response. The
client is expected to drop the response as bogus due to having a
wrong origin timestamp. If it did not check for bogus responses, it
would get a corrupted measurement, possibly with a large error in the
offset and delay. It would also be vulnerable to off-path attacks.
The worst-case scenario for this failure would be a client that
specifically sets the origin timestamp to the server's receive
timestamp, i.e., the client accidentally implemented the interleaved
mode, but it does not accept interleaved responses. This client
would still be able to synchronize its clock. It would drop
interleaved responses as bogus and set the origin timestamp to the
receive timestamp from the last valid response in the basic mode. As
servers are required to not respond twice to the same origin
timestamp in the interleaved mode, at least every other response
would be in the basic mode and accepted by the client.
A missing or corrupted measurement can also be caused by problems on
the server side. A server that does not ensure that the receive and
transmit timestamps in its responses are unique in a sufficiently
long interval can misinterpret requests formed correctly in the basic
mode as interleaved and respond in the interleaved mode. The
response would be dropped by the client as bogus.
A duplicated server receive timestamp can cause an expected
interleaved response to contain a transmit timestamp that does not
correspond to the transmission of the previous response from which
the client copied the receive timestamp to the origin timestamp in
the request, but a different response that contained the same receive
timestamp. The response would be accepted by the client with a small
error in the transmit timestamp equal to the difference between the
transmit timestamps of the two different responses. As the two requests
corresponding to which the two different responses responded were received at the
same time (according to the server's clock), the two transmissions
would be expected to be close to each other and the difference
between them would be comparable to the error a basic response
normally has in its transmit timestamp.
6. Security Considerations
The security considerations for time protocols in general are
discussed in RFC 7384 [RFC7384]. Security considerations specific to
NTP are discussed in RFC 5905 [RFC5905].
Security issues that apply to the basic modes discussed in RFC 5905
[RFC5905] also apply to the interleaved modes. They These issues are
described in "The Security of NTP's Datagram Protocol" [SECNTP].
Clients and peers SHOULD NOT leak the receive timestamp in packets
sent to other peers or clients (e.g., as a reference timestamp) to
prevent off-path attackers from easily getting the origin timestamp
needed to make a valid response in the interleaved mode.
Clients using the interleaved mode SHOULD randomize all bits of
receive and transmit timestamps in their requests (i.e., use provide a
precision of 32) 2^32 seconds) to make it more difficult for off-path
attackers to guess the origin timestamp in the server response.
Unlike in the basic client/server mode, clients using the interleaved
mode cannot set the origin timestamp in their requests to zero (i.e.,
reset the NTP association with every request) to make it more
difficult to track them as they move between networks.
Attackers can force the server to drop its timestamps in order to
prevent clients from getting an interleaved response. They can send
a large number of requests, send requests with a spoofed source
address, or replay an authenticated request if the interleaved mode
is enabled only for authenticated clients. Clients MUST NOT rely on
servers to be able to respond in the interleaved mode.
Protecting symmetric associations in the interleaved mode against
replay attacks is even more difficult than in the basic mode. In
both modes, the NTP state needs to be protected between the reception
of the last non-replayed response and transmission of the next
request in order for the request to contain the origin timestamp
expected by the peer. The difference is in the timestamps needed to
complete a measurement. In the basic mode, only one valid response
is needed at a time and it is used as soon as it is received, but the
interleaved mode needs two consecutive valid responses. The NTP
state needs to be protected at all times, so that the timestamps that
are needed to complete the measurement when the second response is
received will not be lost.
7. IANA Considerations
This document has no IANA actions.
8. References
8.1. 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>.
[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>.
8.2. Informative References
[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>.
[RFC7384] Mizrahi, T., "Security Requirements of Time Protocols in
Packet Switched Networks", RFC 7384, DOI 10.17487/RFC7384,
October 2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7384>.
[RFC9109] Gont, F., Gont, G., and M. Lichvar, "Network Time Protocol
Version 4: Port Randomization", RFC 9109,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9109, August 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9109>.
[SECNTP] Malhotra, A., Van Gundy, M., Varia, M., Kennedy, H.,
Gardner, J., and S. Goldberg, "The Security of NTP's
Datagram Protocol", Cryptology ePrint Archive, Paper
2016/1006, 2016, <https://eprint.iacr.org/2016/1006>.
Acknowledgements
The interleaved modes described in this document are based on the
implementation written by David Mills in the NTP project
(https://www.ntp.org). The specification of the broadcast mode is
based purely on this implementation. The specification of the
symmetric mode has some modifications. The client/server mode is
specified as a new mode compatible with the symmetric mode. It is a
simplified special case of the symmetric mode, similarly analogously to how the
basic symmetric and client/server modes. mode is a special case of the basic symmetric
mode.
The authors would like to thank Doug Arnold, Roman Danyliw, Reese
Enghardt, Daniel Franke, Benjamin Kaduk, Erik Kline, Catherine
Meadows, Tal Mizrahi, Steven Sommars, Harlan Stenn, Kristof Teichel,
and Gunter Van de Velde for their useful comments and suggestions.
Authors' Addresses
Miroslav Lichvar
Red Hat
Purkynova 115
612 00 Brno
Czech Republic
Email: mlichvar@redhat.com
Aanchal Malhotra
Boston University
111 Cummington St
Boston, MA 02215
United States of America
Email: aanchal4@bu.edu