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 products.) 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 PROTECTED] http://www.richw.org _______________________________________________ questions mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ntp.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/questions
