summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/doc/rfc/rfc7821.txt
blob: f5b48f15cfc3c9e03840373911ef284855f2a63f (plain) (blame)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                        T. Mizrahi
Request for Comments: 7821                                       Marvell
Category: Experimental                                        March 2016
ISSN: 2070-1721


       UDP Checksum Complement in the Network Time Protocol (NTP)

Abstract

   The Network Time Protocol (NTP) allows clients to synchronize to a
   time server using timestamped protocol messages.  To facilitate
   accurate timestamping, some implementations use hardware-based
   timestamping engines that integrate the accurate transmission time
   into every outgoing NTP packet during transmission.  Since these
   packets are transported over UDP, the UDP Checksum field is then
   updated to reflect this modification.  This document proposes an
   extension field that includes a 2-octet Checksum Complement, allowing
   timestamping engines to reflect the checksum modification in the last
   2 octets of the packet rather than in the UDP Checksum field.  The
   behavior defined in this document is interoperable with existing NTP
   implementations.

Status of This Memo

   This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
   published for examination, experimental implementation, and
   evaluation.

   This document defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet
   community.  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).  Not
   all documents approved by the IESG are a candidate for any level of
   Internet Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 5741.

   Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
   and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
   http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7821.











Mizrahi                       Experimental                      [Page 1]
^L
RFC 7821                 NTP Checksum Complement              March 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
   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 ....................................................3
      1.1. Intermediate Entities ......................................3
      1.2. Updating the UDP Checksum ..................................4
   2. Conventions Used in This Document ...............................5
      2.1. Terminology ................................................5
      2.2. Abbreviations ..............................................6
   3. Using the UDP Checksum Complement in NTP ........................6
      3.1. Overview ...................................................6
      3.2. Checksum Complement in NTP Packets .........................7
           3.2.1. Using the Checksum Complement .......................7
           3.2.2. Transmission of NTP with Checksum Complement ........8
           3.2.3. Updates of NTP with Checksum Complement .............8
           3.2.4. Reception of NTP with Checksum Complement ...........8
      3.3. Interoperability with Existing Implementations .............9
      3.4. The Checksum Complement and Authentication .................9
   4. Security Considerations ........................................10
   5. IANA Considerations ............................................10
   6. References .....................................................11
      6.1. Normative References ......................................11
      6.2. Informative References ....................................11
   Appendix A. Checksum Complement Usage Example .....................13
   Acknowledgments ...................................................14
   Author's Address ..................................................14











Mizrahi                       Experimental                      [Page 2]
^L
RFC 7821                 NTP Checksum Complement              March 2016


1.  Introduction

   The Network Time Protocol [NTPv4] allows clients to synchronize their
   clocks to a time server by exchanging NTP packets.  The increasing
   demand for highly accurate clock synchronization motivates
   implementations that provide accurate timestamping.

1.1.  Intermediate Entities

   In this document, we use the term "intermediate entity" to refer to
   an entity that resides on the path between the sender and the
   receiver of an NTP packet and that modifies this NTP packet en route.

   In order to facilitate accurate timestamping, an implementation can
   use a hardware-based timestamping engine, as shown in Figure 1.  In
   such cases, NTP packets are sent and received by a software layer,
   whereas a timestamping engine modifies every outgoing NTP packet by
   incorporating its accurate transmission time into the
   <Transmit Timestamp> field in the packet.
































Mizrahi                       Experimental                      [Page 3]
^L
RFC 7821                 NTP Checksum Complement              March 2016


                      NTP client/server
                    +-------------------+
                    |                   |
                    |   +-----------+   |
     Software       |   |    NTP    |   |
                    |   | protocol  |   |
                    |   +-----+-----+   |
                    |         |         |     +-----------------------+
                    |   +-----+-----+   |    / Intermediate entity    |
                    |   | Accurate  |   |   /  in charge of:          |
     ASIC/FPGA      |   | Timestamp |   |  /__ - Timestamping         |
                    |   |  engine   |   |     |- Updating checksum or |
                    |   +-----------+   |     |  Checksum Complement  |
                    |         |         |     +-----------------------+
                    +---------+---------+
                              |
                              |NTP packets
                              |
                          ___ v _
                         /   \_/ \__
                        /           \_
                       /     IP      /
                       \_  Network  /
                        /           \
                        \__/\_   ___/
                              \_/

     ASIC: Application-Specific Integrated Circuit
     FPGA: Field-Programmable Gate Array

                  Figure 1: Accurate Timestamping in NTP

   The accuracy of clock synchronization over packet networks is highly
   sensitive to delay jitters in the underlying network; this
   dramatically affects clock accuracy.  To address this challenge, the
   Precision Time Protocol (PTP) [IEEE1588] defines Transparent Clocks
   (TCs) -- switches and routers that improve end-to-end clock accuracy
   by updating a "Correction Field" in the PTP packet by adding the
   latency caused by the current TC.  In NTP, no equivalent entity is
   currently defined, but future versions of NTP may define an
   intermediate node that modifies en-route NTP packets using a
   "Correction Field".

1.2.  Updating the UDP Checksum

   When the UDP payload is modified by an intermediate entity, the UDP
   Checksum field needs to be updated to maintain its correctness.  When
   using UDP over IPv4 [UDP], an intermediate entity that cannot update



Mizrahi                       Experimental                      [Page 4]
^L
RFC 7821                 NTP Checksum Complement              March 2016


   the value of the UDP Checksum has no choice except to assign a value
   of zero to the Checksum field, causing the receiver to ignore the
   Checksum field and potentially accept corrupted packets.  UDP over
   IPv6, as defined in [IPv6], does not allow a zero checksum, except in
   specific cases [ZeroChecksum].  As discussed in [ZeroChecksum], the
   use of a zero checksum is generally not recommended and should be
   avoided to the extent possible.

   Since an intermediate entity only modifies a specific field in the
   packet, i.e., the Timestamp field, the UDP Checksum update can be
   performed incrementally, using the concepts presented in [Checksum].

   This document defines the Checksum Complement for [NTPv4].  The
   Checksum Complement is a 2-octet field that resides at the end of the
   UDP payload.  It allows intermediate entities to update NTP packets
   and maintain the correctness of the UDP Checksum by modifying the
   last 2 octets of the packet, instead of updating the UDP Checksum
   field.  This is performed by adding an NTP extension field at the end
   of the packet, in which the last 2 octets are used as a Checksum
   Complement.

   The usage of the Checksum Complement can in some cases simplify the
   implementation, because if the packet data is processed in serial
   order, it is simpler to first update the Timestamp field and then
   update the Checksum Complement, rather than to update the timestamp
   and then update the UDP Checksum residing at the UDP header.  Note
   that while it is not impossible to implement a hardware timestamper
   that updates the UDP Checksum, using the Checksum Complement instead
   can significantly simplify the implementation.

   Note that the software layer and the intermediate entity (see
   Figure 1) are two modules in a single NTP clock.  It is assumed that
   these two modules are in agreement regarding whether transmitted NTP
   packets include the Checksum Complement or not.

   [RFC7820] defines the Checksum Complement mechanism for the One-Way
   Active Measurement Protocol (OWAMP) and the Two-Way Active
   Measurement Protocol (TWAMP).  A similar mechanism is presented in
   Annex E of [IEEE1588].

2.  Conventions Used in This Document

2.1.  Terminology

   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 [KEYWORDS].




Mizrahi                       Experimental                      [Page 5]
^L
RFC 7821                 NTP Checksum Complement              March 2016


2.2.  Abbreviations

   MAC      Message Authentication Code

   NTP      Network Time Protocol

   PTP      Precision Time Protocol

   UDP      User Datagram Protocol

3.  Using the UDP Checksum Complement in NTP

3.1.  Overview

   The UDP Checksum Complement is a 2-octet field that is appended at
   the end of the UDP payload, using an NTP extension field.  Figure 2
   illustrates the packet format of an NTP packet with a Checksum
   Complement extension.

                         +--------------------------------+
                         |        IPv4/IPv6 Header        |
                         +--------------------------------+
                         |           UDP Header           |
                         +--------------------------------+
                 ^       |                                |
                 |       |           NTP packet           |
                 |       |                                |
                 |       +--------------------------------+
                UDP      | Optional NTP Extension Fields  |
              Payload    +--------------------------------+
                 |       |    UDP Checksum Complement     |
                 |       |   Extension Field (28 octets)  |
                 v       +--------------------------------+

               Figure 2: Checksum Complement in NTP Packets

   The Checksum Complement is used to compensate for changes performed
   in the NTP packet by intermediate entities, as described in the
   Introduction (Section 1).  An example of the usage of the Checksum
   Complement is provided in Appendix A.











Mizrahi                       Experimental                      [Page 6]
^L
RFC 7821                 NTP Checksum Complement              March 2016


3.2.  Checksum Complement in NTP Packets

   NTP is transported over UDP, either over IPv4 or over IPv6.  This
   document applies to both NTP over IPv4 and NTP over IPv6.

   NTP packets may include one or more extension fields, as defined in
   [NTPv4].  The Checksum Complement in NTP packets resides in a
   dedicated NTP extension field, as shown in Figure 3.

   If the NTP packet includes more than one extension field, the
   Checksum Complement extension is always the last extension field.
   Thus, the Checksum Complement is the last 2 octets in the UDP payload
   and is located at (UDP Length - 2 octets) after the beginning of the
   UDP header.  Note that the Checksum Complement is not used in
   authenticated NTP packets, as further discussed in Section 3.4.

3.2.1.  Using the Checksum Complement

   As described in Section 1, an intermediate entity that updates the
   timestamp in the NTP packet can use the Checksum Complement in order
   to maintain the correctness of the UDP Checksum field.  Specifically,
   if the value of the timestamp is updated, this update yields a change
   in the UDP Checksum value; thus, the intermediate entity assigns a
   new value in the Checksum Complement that cancels this change,
   leaving the current value of the UDP Checksum correct.  An example of
   the usage of the Checksum Complement is provided in Appendix A.

     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
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |          Field Type           |      Length = 28 octets       |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |                                                               |
    |                              MBZ                              |
    |                                                               |
    |                               +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |                               |      Checksum Complement      |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

             Figure 3: NTP Checksum Complement Extension Field











Mizrahi                       Experimental                      [Page 7]
^L
RFC 7821                 NTP Checksum Complement              March 2016


   Field Type

      A dedicated Field Type value is used to identify the Checksum
      Complement extension.  See Section 5.

   Length

      The Checksum Complement extension field length is 28 octets.

      This length guarantees that the host that receives the packet
      parses it correctly, whether the packet includes a MAC or not.
      [RFC7822] provides further details about the length of an
      extension field in the absence of a MAC.

   MBZ

      The extension field includes a 22-octet MBZ (MUST be zero) field.
      This field MUST be set to 0 and MUST be ignored by the recipient.
      The MBZ field is used for padding the extension field to
      28 octets.

   Checksum Complement

      The Checksum Complement extension includes the Checksum Complement
      field, residing in the last 2 octets of the extension.

3.2.2.  Transmission of NTP with Checksum Complement

   The transmitter of an NTP packet MAY include a Checksum Complement
   extension field.

3.2.3.  Updates of NTP with Checksum Complement

   An intermediate entity that receives and alters an NTP packet
   containing a Checksum Complement extension MAY use the Checksum
   Complement to maintain a correct UDP Checksum value.

3.2.4.  Reception of NTP with Checksum Complement

   This document does not impose new requirements on the receiving end
   of an NTP packet.

   The UDP layer at the receiving end verifies the UDP Checksum of
   received NTP packets, and the NTP layer SHOULD ignore the Checksum
   Complement extension field.






Mizrahi                       Experimental                      [Page 8]
^L
RFC 7821                 NTP Checksum Complement              March 2016


3.3.  Interoperability with Existing Implementations

   The behavior defined in this document does not impose new
   requirements on the reception of NTP packets beyond the requirements
   defined in [RFC7822].  Note that, as defined in [RFC7822], a host
   that receives an NTP message with an unknown extension field SHOULD
   ignore the extension field and MAY drop the packet if policy requires
   it.  Thus, transmitters and intermediate entities that support the
   Checksum Complement can transparently interoperate with receivers
   that are not Checksum Complement compliant, as long as these
   receivers ignore unknown extension fields.  It is noted that existing
   implementations that discard packets with unknown extension fields
   cannot interoperate with transmitters that use the Checksum
   Complement.

   It should be noted that when hardware-based timestamping is used, it
   will likely be used at both ends, and thus both hosts that take part
   in the protocol will support the functionality described in this
   memo.  If only one of the hosts uses hardware-based timestamping,
   then the Checksum Complement can only be used if it is known that the
   peer host can accept the Checksum Complement.

3.4.  The Checksum Complement and Authentication

   A Checksum Complement MUST NOT be used when authentication is
   enabled.  The Checksum Complement is useful in unauthenticated mode,
   allowing the intermediate entity to perform serial processing of the
   packet without storing and forwarding it.

   On the other hand, when message authentication is used, an
   intermediate entity that alters NTP packets must also recompute the
   Message Authentication Code (MAC) accordingly.  In this case, it is
   not possible to update the Checksum Complement; updating the Checksum
   Complement would result in having to recalculate the MAC, and there
   would be a cyclic dependency between the MAC and the Checksum
   Complement.  Hence, when updating the MAC, it is necessary to update
   the UDP Checksum field, making the Checksum Complement field
   unnecessary in the presence of authentication.













Mizrahi                       Experimental                      [Page 9]
^L
RFC 7821                 NTP Checksum Complement              March 2016


4.  Security Considerations

   This document describes how a Checksum Complement extension can be
   used for maintaining the correctness of the UDP Checksum.  The
   security considerations of time protocols in general are discussed in
   [SecTime], and the security considerations of NTP are discussed in
   [NTPv4].

   The purpose of this extension is to ease the implementation of
   accurate timestamping engines, as illustrated in Figure 1.  The
   extension is intended to be used internally in an NTP client or
   server.  This extension is not intended to be used by switches and
   routers that reside between the client and the server.  As opposed to
   PTP [IEEE1588], NTP does not require intermediate switches or routers
   to modify the content of NTP messages, and thus any such modification
   should be considered as a malicious man-in-the-middle (MITM) attack.

   It is important to emphasize that the scheme described in this
   document does not increase the protocol's vulnerability to MITM
   attacks; a MITM attacker who maliciously modifies a packet and its
   Checksum Complement is logically equivalent to a MITM attacker who
   modifies a packet and its UDP Checksum field.

   The concept described in this document is intended to be used only in
   unauthenticated mode.  As discussed in Section 3.4, if a
   cryptographic security mechanism is used, then the Checksum
   Complement does not simplify the implementation compared to using the
   conventional Checksum, and therefore the Checksum Complement is not
   used.

5.  IANA Considerations

   IANA has allocated a new value in the "NTP Extension Field Types"
   registry:

      0x2005 Checksum Complement















Mizrahi                       Experimental                     [Page 10]
^L
RFC 7821                 NTP Checksum Complement              March 2016


6.  References

6.1.  Normative References

   [Checksum]  Rijsinghani, A., Ed., "Computation of the Internet
               Checksum via Incremental Update", RFC 1624,
               DOI 10.17487/RFC1624, May 1994,
               <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1624>.

   [IPv6]      Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
               (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, DOI 10.17487/RFC2460,
               December 1998, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2460>.

   [KEYWORDS]  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>.

   [NTPv4]     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>.

   [RFC7822]   Mizrahi, T. and D. Mayer, "Network Time Protocol
               Version 4 (NTPv4) Extension Fields", RFC 7822,
               DOI 10.17487/RFC7822, March 2016,
               <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7822>.

   [UDP]       Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", STD 6, RFC 768,
               DOI 10.17487/RFC768, August 1980,
               <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc768>.

6.2.  Informative References

   [IEEE1588]  IEEE, "IEEE Standard for a Precision Clock
               Synchronization Protocol for Networked Measurement and
               Control Systems", IEEE Std 1588-2008,
               DOI 10.1109/IEEESTD.2008.4579760, July 2008.

   [RFC7820]   Mizrahi, T., "UDP Checksum Complement in the One-Way
               Active Measurement Protocol (OWAMP) and Two-Way Active
               Measurement Protocol (TWAMP)", RFC 7820,
               DOI 10.17487/RFC7820, March 2016,
               <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7820>.







Mizrahi                       Experimental                     [Page 11]
^L
RFC 7821                 NTP Checksum Complement              March 2016


   [SecTime]   Mizrahi, T., "Security Requirements of Time Protocols in
               Packet Switched Networks", RFC 7384,
               DOI 10.17487/RFC7384, October 2014,
               <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7384>.

   [ZeroChecksum]
               Fairhurst, G. and M. Westerlund, "Applicability Statement
               for the Use of IPv6 UDP Datagrams with Zero Checksums",
               RFC 6936, DOI 10.17487/RFC6936, April 2013,
               <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6936>.









































Mizrahi                       Experimental                     [Page 12]
^L
RFC 7821                 NTP Checksum Complement              March 2016


Appendix A.  Checksum Complement Usage Example

   Consider an NTP packet sent by an NTP client to an NTP server.

   The client's software layer (see Figure 1) generates an NTP packet
   with an Origin Timestamp T and a UDP Checksum value U.  The value of
   U is the checksum of the UDP header, UDP payload, and pseudo-header.
   Thus, U is equal to:

                         U = Const + checksum(T)                     (1)

   Where "Const" is the checksum of all the fields that are covered by
   the checksum, except the Origin Timestamp T.

   Recall that the client's software emits the NTP packet with a
   Checksum Complement extension field, which resides at the end of the
   PTP packet.  It is assumed that the client initially assigns zero to
   the value of the Checksum Complement.

   The client's timestamping engine updates the Origin Timestamp field
   to the accurate time, changing its value from T to T'.  The engine
   also updates the Checksum Complement field from zero to a new value
   C, such that:

                   checksum(C) = checksum(T) - checksum(T')          (2)

   When the NTP packet is transmitted by the client's timestamping
   engine, the value of the checksum remains U as before:

      U = Const + checksum(T) = Const + checksum(T) + checksum(T') -
          checksum(T') = Const + checksum(T') + checksum(C)          (3)

   Thus, after the timestamping engine has updated the timestamp,
   U remains the correct checksum of the packet.

   When the NTP packet reaches the NTP server, the server performs a
   conventional UDP Checksum computation, and the computed value is U.
   Since the Checksum Complement is part of the extension field, its
   value (C) is transparently included in the computation, as per
   Equation (3), without requiring special treatment by the server.











Mizrahi                       Experimental                     [Page 13]
^L
RFC 7821                 NTP Checksum Complement              March 2016


Acknowledgments

   The author gratefully thanks Danny Mayer, Miroslav Lichvar, Paul
   Kyzivat, Suresh Krishnan, and Brian Haberman for their review and
   helpful comments.

Author's Address

   Tal Mizrahi
   Marvell
   6 Hamada St.
   Yokneam, 20692
   Israel

   Email: talmi@marvell.com




































Mizrahi                       Experimental                     [Page 14]
^L