Does your D-link product need to be on ?? - Connectivity

This is a discussion on Does your D-link product need to be on ?? - Connectivity ; On Sun, 16 Apr 2006 21:05:05 -0400, Keith put finger to keyboard and composed: >In article , >fzabkar@iinternode.on.net says... >> On Sat, 15 Apr 2006 17:06:19 +0100, "Dave (from the UK)" >> put finger to >> keyboard and composed: >> ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 21 to 31 of 31

Thread: Does your D-link product need to be on ??

  1. Re: Does your D-link product need to be on ??

    On Sun, 16 Apr 2006 21:05:05 -0400, Keith put finger
    to keyboard and composed:

    >In article ,
    >fzabkar@iinternode.on.net says...
    >> On Sat, 15 Apr 2006 17:06:19 +0100, "Dave (from the UK)"
    >> put finger to
    >> keyboard and composed:
    >>
    >> >You may be aware from the BBC article
    >> >
    >> >http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4906138.stm .
    >> >
    >> >or elsewhere that there is a serious flaw on many D-link products which
    >> >get the time from the Internet using time servers. Whilst many time
    >> >servers are open for anyone to use, D-link products are using those
    >> >which are not.

    >>
    >> I have a DSL-302G modem/router. I don't use SNTP because the modem
    >> appears to write the updated time to its flash EEPROM every 15
    >> minutes. If I ran it 24/7, then this would result in approximately
    >> 32,000 writes per year. IMO, it would have been better for the time to
    >> have been stored in RAM.

    >
    >..and it wouldn't last more than 30 years at that rate! Sheesh!


    The modem's only flash device appears to be an Atmel AT45DB161B. Its
    datasheet makes no claims as to the minimum number of write/erase
    cycles.

    By comparison, early AMD flash parts (AM29Fxx) are guaranteed for a
    minimum of 100,000 writes. OTOH, some early digital automobile
    odometers (eg Ford Australia) use serial EEPROMs (eg Xicor X2444) that
    are spec'ed for 1 million store cycles.

    I'm not 100% sure that my modem updates the flash memory after *every*
    time query. It may be that it updates it only when there is a
    significant disparity. What *is* certain is that the modem powers up
    with the date and time of the last SNTP enabled session. I can change
    the time manually, and the modem will then keep the correct time, but
    doing it this way does not update the EEPROM.

    - Franc Zabkar
    --
    Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.

  2. Re: Does your D-link product need to be on ??

    On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 05:58:43 -0500, David Maynard
    wrote:

    >Dave (from the UK) wrote:
    >> Yes I accept that if it only updates once/day. It seems to vary an awful
    >> lot - on some the time server can be configured, on others it can't. On
    >> some the update interval may be configured, on others it may not.

    >
    >I don't know. What percentage of d-link routers update more or less often?
    >Because if more are on 24 hours than less then the idea to turn them off
    >will make his problem worse.


    FWIW my DI-524 defaults to updating once every 24 hours, with the
    option to change this. I now have it set to once every 72 hours and
    using the manually entered NTP server address of
    "north-america.pool.ntp.org".

    -------------
    Tony Hill
    hilla 20 yahoo ca

  3. Re: Does your D-link product need to be on ??


    Dave (from the UK) wrote:
    > David Maynard wrote:
    >



    > Yes I agree.
    >
    > --
    > Dave K MCSE.
    >
    > MCSE = Minefield Consultant and Solitaire Expert.
    >
    > Please note my email address changes periodically to avoid spam.
    > It is always of the form: month-year@domain. Hitting reply will work
    > for a couple of months only. Later set it manually.


    I think this is a little strange that everyone on this group, did not
    do some research before purchasing a router! I thought that the
    carefull research that is done about chips, would carry over into
    routers, and internet gear.

    Ok maybe someone was going for the cheap solution, and did not eat
    their own dog food, but I must say I find that a little bit annoying.
    It makes me wonder what other company does this same stuff, without us
    knowing about it?

    I know my router is set from a site in TW, maybe I will change it, just
    to get a better ntp server. I also wonder just how many different
    compainies make the hardware, I know a few years ago about two or three
    companies where making all the hardware, let other people lable it as
    their own brand. It was not uncommon to see the same hardware in four
    or five rebadged brands. I also thought it was strange that if one had
    a security flaw that all of a sudden you seen multi brand name updates
    as well?

    I have been using ZyXel; but for the last few years I was unable to
    find any firmware updates. My router is a one off 802.11b version and
    they don't even list it on their website. At least I can change the ntp
    server, but it is buggy, and closed source but it does not drop
    connections. I have to factory flash it about once a year, as some bug
    in the firmware starts stop access to some sites for no reason, is
    fixed with a flash back to factory settings.

    Gnu_Raiz


  4. Re: Does your D-link product need to be on ??

    On Tue, 18 Apr 2006 06:13:29 +1000, Franc Zabkar wrote:

    > On Sun, 16 Apr 2006 21:05:05 -0400, Keith put finger
    > to keyboard and composed:
    >
    >>In article ,
    >>fzabkar@iinternode.on.net says...
    >>> On Sat, 15 Apr 2006 17:06:19 +0100, "Dave (from the UK)"
    >>> put finger to
    >>> keyboard and composed:
    >>>
    >>> >You may be aware from the BBC article
    >>> >
    >>> >http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4906138.stm .
    >>> >
    >>> >or elsewhere that there is a serious flaw on many D-link products which
    >>> >get the time from the Internet using time servers. Whilst many time
    >>> >servers are open for anyone to use, D-link products are using those
    >>> >which are not.
    >>>
    >>> I have a DSL-302G modem/router. I don't use SNTP because the modem
    >>> appears to write the updated time to its flash EEPROM every 15
    >>> minutes. If I ran it 24/7, then this would result in approximately
    >>> 32,000 writes per year. IMO, it would have been better for the time to
    >>> have been stored in RAM.

    >>
    >>..and it wouldn't last more than 30 years at that rate! Sheesh!

    >
    > The modem's only flash device appears to be an Atmel AT45DB161B. Its
    > datasheet makes no claims as to the minimum number of write/erase
    > cycles.
    >
    > By comparison, early AMD flash parts (AM29Fxx) are guaranteed for a
    > minimum of 100,000 writes. OTOH, some early digital automobile
    > odometers (eg Ford Australia) use serial EEPROMs (eg Xicor X2444) that
    > are spec'ed for 1 million store cycles.
    >
    > I'm not 100% sure that my modem updates the flash memory after *every*
    > time query. It may be that it updates it only when there is a
    > significant disparity. What *is* certain is that the modem powers up
    > with the date and time of the last SNTP enabled session. I can change
    > the time manually, and the modem will then keep the correct time, but
    > doing it this way does not update the EEPROM.


    ....and those are the *MINIMUM* cycles (most do 10x that these days)
    assuming they write back and erase exactly the same sector each time.
    Sheesh - twice. Grow up Franc!

    --
    Keith

  5. Re: Does your D-link product need to be on ??

    Tony Hill wrote:

    > On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 05:58:43 -0500, David Maynard
    > wrote:
    >
    >
    >>Dave (from the UK) wrote:
    >>
    >>>Yes I accept that if it only updates once/day. It seems to vary an awful
    >>>lot - on some the time server can be configured, on others it can't. On
    >>>some the update interval may be configured, on others it may not.

    >>
    >>I don't know. What percentage of d-link routers update more or less often?
    >>Because if more are on 24 hours than less then the idea to turn them off
    >>will make his problem worse.

    >
    >
    > FWIW my DI-524 defaults to updating once every 24 hours, with the
    > option to change this. I now have it set to once every 72 hours and
    > using the manually entered NTP server address of
    > "north-america.pool.ntp.org".


    Good man

    >
    > -------------
    > Tony Hill
    > hilla 20 yahoo ca



  6. Re: Does your D-link product need to be on ??

    On 17 Apr 2006 17:46:14 -0700, Gnu.Raiz@gmail.com wrote:

    >
    >Dave (from the UK) wrote:
    >> David Maynard wrote:
    >>

    >
    >
    >> Yes I agree.
    >>
    >> --
    >> Dave K MCSE.
    >>
    >> MCSE = Minefield Consultant and Solitaire Expert.
    >>
    >> Please note my email address changes periodically to avoid spam.
    >> It is always of the form: month-year@domain. Hitting reply will work
    >> for a couple of months only. Later set it manually.

    >
    >I think this is a little strange that everyone on this group, did not
    >do some research before purchasing a router! I thought that the
    >carefull research that is done about chips, would carry over into
    >routers, and internet gear.
    >
    >Ok maybe someone was going for the cheap solution, and did not eat
    >their own dog food, but I must say I find that a little bit annoying.
    >It makes me wonder what other company does this same stuff, without us
    >knowing about it?
    >
    >I know my router is set from a site in TW, maybe I will change it, just
    >to get a better ntp server. I also wonder just how many different
    >compainies make the hardware, I know a few years ago about two or three
    >companies where making all the hardware, let other people lable it as
    >their own brand. It was not uncommon to see the same hardware in four
    >or five rebadged brands. I also thought it was strange that if one had
    >a security flaw that all of a sudden you seen multi brand name updates
    >as well?


    Anand wrote in an article a few months ago, after visiting one of their
    plants, that D-Link was one of the few real mfrs of networking
    equipment.:-)

    --
    Rgds, George Macdonald

  7. Re: Does your D-link product need to be on ??

    On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 21:57:35 -0400, Keith put finger
    to keyboard and composed:

    >On Tue, 18 Apr 2006 06:13:29 +1000, Franc Zabkar wrote:


    >> By comparison, early AMD flash parts (AM29Fxx) are guaranteed for a
    >> minimum of 100,000 writes. OTOH, some early digital automobile
    >> odometers (eg Ford Australia) use serial EEPROMs (eg Xicor X2444) that
    >> are spec'ed for 1 million store cycles.


    >...and those are the *MINIMUM* cycles (most do 10x that these days) ...


    Nonsense.

    Spansion now specifies "100,000 erase cycles per sector TYPICAL" for
    its current product line.

    See http://www.spansion.com/datasheets/s...xn_00_a6_e.pdf

    >... assuming they write back and erase exactly the same sector each time.
    >Sheesh - twice. Grow up Franc!


    You really are a pathetic little man.

    - Franc Zabkar
    --
    Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.

  8. Re: Does your D-link product need to be on ??

    On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 16:57:15 +1000, Franc Zabkar wrote:

    > On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 21:57:35 -0400, Keith put finger
    > to keyboard and composed:
    >
    >>On Tue, 18 Apr 2006 06:13:29 +1000, Franc Zabkar wrote:

    >
    >>> By comparison, early AMD flash parts (AM29Fxx) are guaranteed for a
    >>> minimum of 100,000 writes. OTOH, some early digital automobile
    >>> odometers (eg Ford Australia) use serial EEPROMs (eg Xicor X2444) that
    >>> are spec'ed for 1 million store cycles.

    >
    >>...and those are the *MINIMUM* cycles (most do 10x that these days) ...

    >
    > Nonsense.
    >
    > Spansion now specifies "100,000 erase cycles per sector TYPICAL" for
    > its current product line.


    You still haven't learned how to read, eh' Franc?

    > See http://www.spansion.com/datasheets/s...xn_00_a6_e.pdf
    >
    >>... assuming they write back and erase exactly the same sector each time.
    >>Sheesh - twice. Grow up Franc!

    >
    > You really are a pathetic little man.


    You are truely clueless. Now run away again while you have a chance.

    --
    Keith

  9. Re: Does your D-link product need to be on ??

    In article , George
    Macdonald writes

    >I have to ask what gateway/router
    >vendors are supposed to program into their devices for "default" NTP
    >look-up


    pool.ntp.org.

    And if the unit has any country configuration, XX.pool.ntp.org, where XX
    is the country code.

    --
    (\__/)
    (='.'=) This is Bunny. Copy and paste bunny into your
    (")_(") signature to help him gain world domination.


  10. Re: Does your D-link product need to be on ??

    On Fri, 21 Apr 2006 18:01:07 +0100, Mike Tomlinson
    wrote:

    >In article , George
    >Macdonald writes
    >
    >>I have to ask what gateway/router
    >>vendors are supposed to program into their devices for "default" NTP
    >>look-up

    >
    >pool.ntp.org.
    >
    >And if the unit has any country configuration, XX.pool.ntp.org, where XX
    >is the country code.


    If you had read the thread, instead of letting one off, that suggestion had
    been made and "pool" is a relatively recent facility, which appears to not
    be very well publicized. Also there are routers which only allow a number
    to be entered as a target... if they allow anything at all.

    --
    Rgds, George Macdonald

  11. Re: Does your D-link product need to be on ??

    On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 22:28:36 -0400, Keith put finger
    to keyboard and composed:

    >On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 16:57:15 +1000, Franc Zabkar wrote:
    >
    >> On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 21:57:35 -0400, Keith put finger
    >> to keyboard and composed:
    >>
    >>>On Tue, 18 Apr 2006 06:13:29 +1000, Franc Zabkar wrote:

    >>
    >>>> By comparison, early AMD flash parts (AM29Fxx) are guaranteed for a
    >>>> minimum of 100,000 writes. OTOH, some early digital automobile
    >>>> odometers (eg Ford Australia) use serial EEPROMs (eg Xicor X2444) that
    >>>> are spec'ed for 1 million store cycles.

    >>
    >>>...and those are the *MINIMUM* cycles (most do 10x that these days) ...

    >>
    >> Nonsense.
    >>
    >> Spansion now specifies "100,000 erase cycles per sector TYPICAL" for
    >> its current product line.

    >
    >You still haven't learned how to read, eh' Franc?


    What is it about the word, "typical", that you don't understand?

    Hint: think Gaussian distribution.

    Then ask yourself, why is it that AMD/Spansion has gone from
    specifying a guaranteed *minimum* of 100K cycles to 100K *typical*? Do
    you even understand the difference?

    >> See http://www.spansion.com/datasheets/s...xn_00_a6_e.pdf
    >>
    >>>... assuming they write back and erase exactly the same sector each time.
    >>>Sheesh - twice. Grow up Franc!

    >>
    >> You really are a pathetic little man.

    >
    >You are truely clueless. Now run away again while you have a chance.


    Run away from what? Your rapier wit? Your technical prowess?

    There are many in this group whose opinions I respect. You are not one
    of them.

    - Franc Zabkar
    --
    Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2