Control Messages Protocol for Use with Network Time Protocol Version 4
draft-haberman-ntpwg-mode-6-cmds-00
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft whose latest revision state is "Replaced".
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Professor David L. Mills , Brian Haberman | ||
| Last updated | 2016-05-17 | ||
| Replaced by | draft-ietf-ntp-mode-6-cmds, draft-ietf-ntp-mode-6-cmds, RFC 9327 | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Additional resources | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-haberman-ntpwg-mode-6-cmds-00
Network Working Group D. Mills
Internet-Draft University of Deleware
Intended status: Informational B. Haberman
Expires: November 17, 2016 May 16, 2016
Control Messages Protocol for Use with Network Time Protocol Version 4
draft-haberman-ntpwg-mode-6-cmds-00
Abstract
This document describes the structure of the control messages used
with the Network Time Protocol. These control messages can be used
to monitor and control the Network Time Protocol application running
on any IP network attached computer. The information in this
document was originally described in Appendix B of RFC 1305.
Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
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 http://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 November 17, 2016.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2016 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
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
Mills & Haberman Expires November 17, 2016 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft NTP Control Messages May 2016
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.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. NTP Control Message Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Status Words . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. System Status Word . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2. Peer Status Word . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.3. Clock Status Word . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.4. Error Status Word . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4. Commands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
1. Introduction
In a comprehensive network-management environment, facilities are
presumed available to perform routine NTP control and monitoring
functions, such as setting the leap-indicator bits at the primary
servers, adjusting the various system parameters and monitoring
regular operations. Ordinarily, these functions can be implemented
using a network-management protocol such as SNMP and suitable
extensions to the MIB database. However, in those cases where such
facilities are not available, these functions can be implemented
using special NTP control messages described herein. These messages
are intended for use only in systems where no other management
facilities are available or appropriate, such as in dedicated-
function bus peripherals. Support for these messages is not required
in order to conform to RFC 5905 [RFC5905].
The NTP Control Message has the value 6 specified in the mode field
of the first octet of the NTP header and is formatted as shown in
Figure 1. The format of the data field is specific to each command
or response; however, in most cases the format is designed to be
constructed and viewed by humans and so is coded in free-form ASCII.
This facilitates the specification and implementation of simple
management tools in the absence of fully evolved network-management
facilities. As in ordinary NTP messages, the authenticator field
follows the data field. If the authenticator is used the data field
Mills & Haberman Expires November 17, 2016 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft NTP Control Messages May 2016
is zero-padded to a 32-bit boundary, but the padding bits are not
considered part of the data field and are not included in the field
count.
IP hosts are not required to reassemble datagrams larger than 576
octets; however, some commands or responses may involve more data
than will fit into a single datagram. Accordingly, a simple
reassembly feature is included in which each octet of the message
data is numbered starting with zero. As each fragment is transmitted
the number of its first octet is inserted in the offset field and the
number of octets is inserted in the count field. The more-data (M)
bit is set in all fragments except the last.
Most control functions involve sending a command and receiving a
response, perhaps involving several fragments. The sender chooses a
distinct, nonzero sequence number and sets the status field and R and
E bits to zero. The responder interprets the opcode and additional
information in the data field, updates the status field, sets the R
bit to one and returns the three 32-bit words of the header along
with additional information in the data field. In case of invalid
message format or contents the responder inserts a code in the status
field, sets the R and E bits to one and, optionally, inserts a
diagnostic message in the data field.
Some commands read or write system variables and peer variables for
an association identified in the command. Others read or write
variables associated with a radio clock or other device directly
connected to a source of primary synchronization information. To
identify which type of variable and association a 16-bit association
identifier is used. System variables are indicated by the identifier
zero. As each association is mobilized a unique, nonzero identifier
is created for it. These identifiers are used in a cyclic fashion,
so that the chance of using an old identifier which matches a newly
created association is remote. A management entity can request a
list of current identifiers and subsequently use them to read and
write variables for each association. An attempt to use an expired
identifier results in an exception response, following which the list
can be requested again.
Some exception events, such as when a peer becomes reachable or
unreachable, occur spontaneously and are not necessarily associated
with a command. An implementation may elect to save the event
information for later retrieval or to send an asynchronous response
(called a trap) or both. In case of a trap the IP address and port
number is determined by a previous command and the sequence field is
set as described below. Current status and summary information for
the latest exception event is returned in all normal responses. Bits
Mills & Haberman Expires November 17, 2016 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft NTP Control Messages May 2016
in the status field indicate whether an exception has occurred since
the last response and whether more than one exception has occurred.
Commands need not necessarily be sent by an NTP peer, so ordinary
access-control procedures may not apply; however, the optional mask/
match mechanism suggested elsewhere in this document provides the
capability to control access by mode number, so this could be used to
limit access for control messages (mode 6) to selected address
ranges.
2. NTP Control Message Format
The format of the NTP Control Message header, which immediately
follows the UDP header, is shown in Figure 1. Following is a
description of its fields. Bit positions marked as zero are reserved
and should always be transmitted as zero.
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0|0| VN |Mode |R|E|M| OpCode | Sequence Number |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Status | Association ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Offset | Count |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
/ Data (up to 468 bytes) /
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
/ Authenticator (optional, 96 bytes) /
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: NTP Control Message Header
Version Number (VN): This is a three-bit integer indicating the NTP
version number, currently four (4).
Mode: This is a three-bit integer indicating the mode. It must have
the value 6, indicating an NTP control message.
Response Bit (R): Set to zero for commands, one for responses.
Error Bit (E): Set to zero for normal response, one for error
response.
Mills & Haberman Expires November 17, 2016 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft NTP Control Messages May 2016
More Bit (M): Set to zero for last fragment, one for all others.
Operation Code (OpCode): This is a five-bit integer specifying the
command function. Values currently defined include the following:
+-------+--------------------------------------------------+
| Code | Meaning |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------+
| 0 | reserved |
| 1 | read status command/response |
| 2 | read variables command/response |
| 3 | write variables command/response |
| 4 | read clock variables command/response |
| 5 | write clock variables command/response |
| 6 | set trap address/port command/response |
| 7 | trap response |
| 8-31 | reserved |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------+
Sequence Number: This is a 16-bit integer indicating the sequence
number of the command or response.
Status: This is a 16-bit code indicating the current status of the
system, peer or clock, with values coded as described in following
sections.
Association ID: This is a 16-bit integer identifying a valid
association.
Offset: This is a 16-bit integer indicating the offset, in octets, of
the first octet in the data area.
Count: This is a 16-bit integer indicating the length of the data
field, in octets.
Data: This contains the message data for the command or response.
The maximum number of data octets is 468.
Authenticator (optional): When the NTP authentication mechanism is
implemented, this contains the authenticator information defined in
Appendix C of RFC 1305.
3. Status Words
Status words indicate the present status of the system, associations
and clock. They are designed to be interpreted by network-monitoring
programs and are in one of four 16-bit formats shown in Figure 6 and
described in this section. System and peer status words are
Mills & Haberman Expires November 17, 2016 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft NTP Control Messages May 2016
associated with responses for all commands except the read clock
variables, write clock variables and set trap address/port commands.
The association identifier zero specifies the system status word,
while a nonzero identifier specifies a particular peer association.
The status word returned in response to read clock variables and
write clock variables commands indicates the state of the clock
hardware and decoding software. A special error status word is used
to report malformed command fields or invalid values.
3.1. System Status Word
The system status word appears in the status field of the response to
a read status or read variables command with a zero association
identifier. The format of the system status word is as follows:
Leap Indicator (LI): This is a two-bit code warning of an impending
leap second to be inserted/deleted in the last minute of the current
day, with bit 0 and bit 1, respectively, coded as follows:
+------+------------------------------------------------------------+
| LI | Meaning |
+------+------------------------------------------------------------+
| 00 | no warning |
| 01 | read status command/response |
| 10 | read variables command/response |
| 11 | write variables command/response |
+------+------------------------------------------------------------+
Clock Source: This is a six-bit integer indicating the current
synchronization source, with values coded as follows:
+-------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| Code | Meaning |
+-------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| 0 | unspecified or unknown |
| 1 | Calibrated atomic clock (e.g.,, HP 5061) |
| 2 | VLF (band 4) or LF (band 5) radio (e.g.,, OMEGA,, WWVB) |
| 3 | HF (band 7) radio (e.g.,, CHU,, MSF,, WWV/H) |
| 4 | UHF (band 9) satellite (e.g.,, GOES,, GPS) |
| 5 | local net (e.g.,, DCN,, TSP,, DTS) |
| 6 | UDP/NTP |
| 7 | UDP/TIME |
| 8 | eyeball-and-wristwatch |
| 9 | telephone modem (e.g.,, NIST) |
| 10-63 | reserved |
+-------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
Mills & Haberman Expires November 17, 2016 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft NTP Control Messages May 2016
System Event Counter: This is a four-bit integer indicating the
number of system exception events occurring since the last time the
system status word was returned in a response or included in a trap
message. The counter is cleared when returned in the status field of
a response and freezes when it reaches the value 15.
System Event Code: This is a four-bit integer identifying the latest
system exception event, with new values overwriting previous values,
and coded as follows:
+------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| Code | Meaning |
+------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| 0 | unspecified |
| 1 | system restart |
| 2 | system or hardware fault |
| 3 | system new status word (leap bits or |
| | synchronization change) |
| 4 | system new synchronization source or stratum (sys.peer or |
| | sys.stratum change) |
| 5 | system clock reset (offset correction exceeds CLOCK.MAX) |
| 6 | system invalid time or date (see NTP specification) |
| 7 | system clock exception (see system clock status word) |
| 8-15 | reserved |
+------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
3.2. Peer Status Word
A peer status word is returned in the status field of a response to a
read status, read variables or write variables command and appears
also in the list of association identifiers and status words returned
by a read status command with a zero association identifier. The
format of a peer status word is as follows:
Peer Status: This is a five-bit code indicating the status of the
peer determined by the packet procedure, with bits assigned as
follows:
+-------------+---------------------------------------------------+
| Peer Status | Meaning |
+-------------+---------------------------------------------------+
| 0 | configured (peer.config) |
| 1 | authentication enabled (peer.authenable) |
| 2 | authentication okay (peer.authentic) |
| 3 | reachability okay (peer.reach <F128M>?F255D> 0) |
| 4 | reserved |
+-------------+---------------------------------------------------+
Mills & Haberman Expires November 17, 2016 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft NTP Control Messages May 2016
Peer Selection (Sel): This is a three-bit integer indicating the
status of the peer determined by the clock-selection procedure, with
values coded as follows:
+-----+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| Sel | Meaning |
+-----+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| 0 | rejected |
| 1 | passed receive sanity checks |
| 2 | passed correctness check (intersection algorithm |
| 3 | passed candidate checks (if limit check implemented) |
| 4 | passed outlyer checks (cluster algorithm |
| 5 | current synchronization source; max distance exceeded |
| | (if limit check implemented) |
| 6 | current synchronization source; max distance okay |
| 7 | reserved |
+-----+-------------------------------------------------------------+
Peer Event Counter: This is a four-bit integer indicating the number
of peer exception events that occurred since the last time the peer
status word was returned in a response or included in a trap message.
The counter is cleared when returned in the status field of a
response and freezes when it reaches the value 15. Peer Event Code:
This is a four-bit integer identifying the latest peer exception
event, with new values overwriting previous values, and coded as
follows:
+-------+---------------------------------------------------------+
| Peer | |
| Event | Meaning |
| Code | |
+-------+---------------------------------------------------------+
| 0 | unspecified |
| 1 | peer IP error |
| 2 | peer authentication failure (peer.authentic bit 1 --> 0 |
| 3 | peer unreachable (peer.reach was nonzero now zero) |
| 4 | peer reachable (peer.reach was zero now nonzero) |
| 5 | peer clock exception (see peer clock status word) |
| 6-15 | reserved |
+-------+---------------------------------------------------------+
3.3. Clock Status Word
There are two ways a reference clock can be attached to a NTP service
host, as an dedicated device managed by the operating system and as a
synthetic peer managed by NTP. As in the read status command, the
association identifier is used to identify which one, zero for the
system clock and nonzero for a peer clock. Only one system clock is
Mills & Haberman Expires November 17, 2016 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft NTP Control Messages May 2016
supported by the protocol, although many peer clocks can be
supported. A system or peer clock status word appears in the status
field of the response to a read clock variables or write clock
variables command. This word can be considered an extension of the
system status word or the peer status word as appropriate. The
format of the clock status word is as follows:
Clock Status: This is an eight-bit integer indicating the current
clock status, with values coded as follows:
+--------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| Clock Status | Meaning |
+--------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| 0 | clock operating within nominals |
| 1 | reply timeout |
| 2 | bad reply format |
| 3 | hardware or software fault |
| 4 | propagation failure |
| 5 | bad date format or value |
| 6 | bad time format or value |
| 7-255 | reserved |
+--------------+--------------------------------------------------+
Clock Event Code: This is an eight-bit integer identifying the latest
clock exception event, with new values overwriting previous values.
When a change to any nonzero value occurs in the radio status field,
the radio status field is copied to the clock event code field and a
system or peer clock exception event is declared as appropriate.
3.4. Error Status Word
An error status word is returned in the status field of an error
response as the result of invalid message format or contents. Its
presence is indicated when the E (error) bit is set along with the
response (R) bit in the response. It consists of an eight-bit
integer coded as follows:
Mills & Haberman Expires November 17, 2016 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft NTP Control Messages May 2016
+--------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| Error Status | Meaning |
+--------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| 0 | unspecified |
| 1 | authentication failure |
| 2 | invalid message length or format |
| 3 | invalid opcode |
| 4 | unknown association identifier |
| 5 | unknown variable name |
| 6 | invalid variable value |
| 7 | administratively prohibited |
| 8-255 | reserved |
+--------------+--------------------------------------------------+
4. Commands
Commands consist of the header and optional data field shown in
Figure 6 of RFC 1305. When present, the data field contains a list
of identifiers or assignments in the form
<<identifier>>[=<<value>>],<<identifier>>[=<<value>>],... where
<<identifier>> is the ASCII name of a system or peer variable
specified in Table 2 or Table 3 of RFC 1305 and <<value>> is
expressed as a decimal, hexadecimal or string constant in the syntax
of the C programming language. Where no ambiguity exists, the
<169>sys.<170> or <169>peer.<170> prefixes shown in Table 2 or
Table 4 of RFC 1305 can be suppressed. Whitespace (ASCII nonprinting
format effectors) can be added to improve readability for simple
monitoring programs that do not reformat the data field. Internet
addresses are represented as four octets in the form [n.n.n.n], where
n is in decimal notation and the brackets are optional. Timestamps,
including reference, originate, receive and transmit values, as well
as the logical clock, are represented in units of seconds and
fractions, preferably in hexadecimal notation, while delay, offset,
dispersion and distance values are represented in units of
milliseconds and fractions, preferably in decimal notation. All
other values are represented as-is, preferably in decimal notation.
Implementations may define variables other than those listed in
Table 2 or Table 3 of RFC 1305. Called extramural variables, these
are distinguished by the inclusion of some character type other than
alphanumeric or <169>.<170> in the name. For those commands that
return a list of assignments in the response data field, if the
command data field is empty, it is expected that all available
variables defined in Table 3 or Table 4 of RFC 1305 will be included
in the response. For the read commands, if the command data field is
nonempty, an implementation may choose to process this field to
individually select which variables are to be returned.
Mills & Haberman Expires November 17, 2016 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft NTP Control Messages May 2016
Commands are interpreted as follows:
Read Status (1): The command data field is empty or contains a list
of identifiers separated by commas. The command operates in two ways
depending on the value of the association identifier. If this
identifier is nonzero, the response includes the peer identifier and
status word. Optionally, the response data field may contain other
information, such as described in the Read Variables command. If the
association identifier is zero, the response includes the system
identifier (0) and status word, while the data field contains a list
of binary-coded pairs <<association identifier>> <<status word>>, one
for each currently defined association.
Read Variables (2): The command data field is empty or contains a
list of identifiers separated by commas. If the association
identifier is nonzero, the response includes the requested peer
identifier and status word, while the data field contains a list of
peer variables and values as described above. If the association
identifier is zero, the data field contains a list of system
variables and values. If a peer has been selected as the
synchronization source, the response includes the peer identifier and
status word; otherwise, the response includes the system identifier
(0) and status word.
Write Variables (3): The command data field contains a list of
assignments as described above. The variables are updated as
indicated. The response is as described for the Read Variables
command.
Read Clock Variables (4): The command data field is empty or contains
a list of identifiers separated by commas. The association
identifier selects the system clock variables or peer clock variables
in the same way as in the Read Variables command. The response
includes the requested clock identifier and status word and the data
field contains a list of clock variables and values, including the
last timecode message received from the clock.
Write Clock Variables (5): The command data field contains a list of
assignments as described above. The clock variables are updated as
indicated. The response is as described for the Read Clock Variables
command.
Set Trap Address/Port (6): The command association identifier, status
and data fields are ignored. The address and port number for
subsequent trap messages are taken from the source address and port
of the control message itself. The initial trap counter for trap
response messages is taken from the sequence field of the command.
The response association identifier, status and data fields are not
Mills & Haberman Expires November 17, 2016 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft NTP Control Messages May 2016
significant. Implementations should include sanity timeouts which
prevent trap transmissions if the monitoring program does not renew
this information after a lengthy interval.
Trap Response (7): This message is sent when a system, peer or clock
exception event occurs. The opcode field is 7 and the R bit is set.
The trap counter is incremented by one for each trap sent and the
sequence field set to that value. The trap message is sent using the
IP address and port fields established by the set trap address/port
command. If a system trap the association identifier field is set to
zero and the status field contains the system status word. If a peer
trap the association identifier field is set to that peer and the
status field contains the peer status word. Optional ASCII-coded
information can be included in the data field.
5. IANA Considerations
This document makes no request of IANA.
Note to RFC Editor: this section may be removed on publication as an
RFC.
6. Security Considerations
7. Acknowledgements
Tim Plunkett created the original version of this document.
8. 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,
<http://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,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5905>.
Authors' Addresses
Dr. David L. Mills
University of Deleware
Email: mills@udel.edu
Mills & Haberman Expires November 17, 2016 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft NTP Control Messages May 2016
Brian Haberman
Email: brian@innovationslab.net
Mills & Haberman Expires November 17, 2016 [Page 13]