Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2015 16:53:42 +0100 (CET) From: elof2@sentor.se To: Matthew Seaman <matthew@FreeBSD.org> Cc: freebsd-net <freebsd-net@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: IPFW blocked my IPv6 NTP traffic Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1512011650350.54839@farmermaggot.shire.sentor.se> In-Reply-To: <565DBA5B.20203@FreeBSD.org> References: <1448920706.962818.454005905.61CF9154@webmail.messagingengine.com> <1448956697.854911427.15is5btc@frv34.fwdcdn.com> <1448982333.1269981.454734633.11BA4DB2@webmail.messagingengine.com> <565DBA5B.20203@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 1 Dec 2015, Matthew Seaman wrote: > On 2015/12/01 15:05, Mark Felder wrote: >> Notice how almost all of them are port 123 on both sides, but a few of >> them are not. Why? The RFC says that NTP is supposed to be using port >> 123 as both the source and destination port, but I clearly have >> something happening on port 16205. Is something screwy with ntpd in >> CURRENT? > > NTP not using port 123 as the source port usually indicates that it is > behind a NAT gateway at the other end. It's harmless and fairly common. ...or simply that it is a ntp *client* like ntpdate, and not a daemon. Clients often use a random source port, while ntpd use source port 123. /Elof
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?alpine.BSF.2.00.1512011650350.54839>