| Re: [chrony-dev] Experimental NTS support |
[ Thread Index |
Date Index
| More chrony.tuxfamily.org/chrony-dev Archives
]
On Mon, Jul 01, 2019 at 09:31:50AM -0500, Lonnie Abelbeck wrote:
> > millions clients at the same time. How would you do that with
> > Wireguard?
>
> Not sure, WireGuard's "Cryptokey Routing" is not needed here, nor are unique client keypairs.
>
> Simply brainstorming to test keeping with UDP and using Curve25519 for authentication. Possibly some of WireGuard's work could be used.
I'm not sure how would that work. If you have an idea, please post it
to the NTP WG mailing list. I think people would be very interested in
something simpler than NTS that doesn't use (D)TLS and has similar
properties.
> Name/IP Address NP NR Span Frequency Freq Skew Offset Std Dev
> ==============================================================================
> 10.4.0.88 6 3 86m -0.063 0.350 -55us 129us
> <vultr public ip> 8 5 120m +0.060 0.475 -155us 540us
> Name/IP Address NP NR Span Frequency Freq Skew Offset Std Dev
> ==============================================================================
> 10.4.0.88 13 9 589 +0.318 1.169 +182us 209us
> <vultr public ip> 8 5 453 +0.055 4.189 -21us 242us
> Name/IP Address NP NR Span Frequency Freq Skew Offset Std Dev
> ==============================================================================
> 10.4.0.88 20 11 1107 -0.033 0.771 +14us 291us
> <vultr public ip> 17 10 1035 +0.028 1.249 -14us 361us
> Name/IP Address NP NR Span Frequency Freq Skew Offset Std Dev
> ==============================================================================
> 10.4.0.88 23 11 29m +0.048 0.164 +257us 94us
> <vultr public ip> 22 14 25m +0.113 0.807 -187us 374us
> Name/IP Address NP NR Span Frequency Freq Skew Offset Std Dev
> ==============================================================================
> 10.4.0.88 28 15 59m +0.018 0.076 +365us 98us
> <vultr public ip> 28 15 51m -0.032 0.386 -309us 432us
So there seems to be a significant offset between the two sources,
most likely caused by the delays due the WireGuard encryption and
decryption. Is there a significant difference in CPU speed of the
server and client?
I think at least in theory it is possible to implement SW/HW
timestamping over WireGuard interfaces, which would remove that
difference.
> Interesting how the "Std Dev" trends lower over WireGuard.
That is interesting.
--
Miroslav Lichvar
--
To unsubscribe email chrony-dev-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx with "unsubscribe" in the subject.
For help email chrony-dev-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx with "help" in the subject.
Trouble? Email listmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.