On Wed, Mar, 2001, Bret wrote:
> either by creating a new 'timestamp clock' for
> each TCP session (that uses timestamps)
You can't do this .. it breaks the use of such timestamps for things
like TCP Sequence number wrap-around protection on fast networks
(gigabit).
> or by starting the timestamp clock off with some random number.
I don't think this breaks any rules or functionality and shouldn't even
hit performance. A series of observations would still enable you to
obtain uptime information, since the readings would be linear until a
reboot. If you sampled timestamps from a machine periodically you could
work out it's probably uptime to within the length of that
period. Obviously you're readings would be meaningless until you
witness a reboot, but beyond that point you should still be able to
tell.
There is a slight issue over whether you actually care that people know
your system uptime.
--
Stephen White \ OU Compsoc System Administration Team
PGP Key ID: 0xC79E5B6A \ System Administration Co-ordinator
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> \ http://ox.compsoc.net/~swhite/
