This is a discussion on PHK / D-Link problem -- technical details of resolution? - NTP ; I'm confused at how the PHK / D-Link case was "amicably resolved". If I understand the agreement correctly, D-Link can continue to use the Danish NTP server (gps.dix.dk) in existing products, but they have promised not to have any of ...
I'm confused at how the PHK / D-Link case was "amicably resolved".
If I understand the agreement correctly, D-Link can continue to
use the Danish NTP server (gps.dix.dk) in existing products, but
they have promised not to have any of their newer equipment use it.
(Someone please correct me if I'm mistaken here.)
From a technical point of view, it seems that this is going to
cause the existing bandwidth consumption problems (and the extra
cost to DIX and/or to Poul-Henning) to continue indefinitely. The
problem won't get any worse, to be sure, but it really won't get
any better for some time to come (until the equipment in question
becomes obsolete or breaks and people stop using it).
At the very least, I would think that the "gps.dix.dk" host name
should have been assigned to a new IP address, not in Denmark, and
that PHK's server should have been given a new name. The legitimate
users of gps.dix.dk could presumably have been notified of such a
change far more easily than D-Link's clueless customers could have
been contacted and convinced to upload new firmware for their boxes.
(The D-Link boxes were/are referencing gps.dix.dk by host name,
right?, and not by IP address? Obviously, the above suggestion
wouldn't work if the IP address has been hard-wired into D-Link's
Does anyone (who is able/willing to talk) know any more technical
details about how this issue was "resolved" -- and why they didn't
do something like what I just described?
Rich Wales email@example.com http://www.richw.org