Danny Mayer wrote:
Martin Burnicki wrote:
Danny,
I think I still have the dynamic DLL function import code lying around.
Should I try to add it to the current ntp-dev so you just had to care
about calling the functions and evaluating the results to see if IPv6 is
supported? That should
Dave Hart wrote:
On Jan 13, 5:39 am, Steve Kostecke koste...@ntp.org wrote:
On 2009-01-13, Dave Hart daveh...@gmail.com wrote:
Just build a binary that requires WinXP/Windows Server 2003 or
The NTP Project releases The NTP Reference Implementation only as source
code.
Steve Kostecke
Martin Burnicki wrote:
Danny Mayer wrote:
Martin Burnicki wrote:
Danny,
I think I still have the dynamic DLL function import code lying around.
Should I try to add it to the current ntp-dev so you just had to care
about calling the functions and evaluating the results to see if IPv6 is
Danny Mayer wrote:
Martin Burnicki wrote:
as already mentioned I hust wanted to save you some work since you've
still got so many other things on your todo list ...
Martin
If you want to do this part, sure, go ahead. The other part I will do,
which is to enumerate the IPv4 and IPv6
Dave Hart wrote:
On Jan 12, 6:52 pm, ma...@ntp.isc.org (Danny Mayer) wrote:
We won't be supporting IPv6 on Windows
2000, it's just too difficult to deal with from a support point of
view.
OK, Windows 2000 is too difficult to deal with from a support point of
view. Why on earth have we been
Dave Hart wrote:
On Jan 12, 6:52 pm, ma...@ntp.isc.org (Danny Mayer) wrote:
And line 340-341 makes it clear that it's doing it's own lookups:
// there was a new CNAME, look again.
WspiapiSwap(pszName, pszAlias, pszScratch);
That also means that it is not using the resolvers since CNAME
On 2009-01-13, Dave Hart daveh...@gmail.com wrote:
Just build a binary that requires WinXP/Windows Server 2003 or
The NTP Project releases The NTP Reference Implementation only as source
code.
--
Steve Kostecke koste...@ntp.org
NTP Public Services Project - http://support.ntp.org/
Danny,
I think I still have the dynamic DLL function import code lying around.
Should I try to add it to the current ntp-dev so you just had to care about
calling the functions and evaluating the results to see if IPv6 is
supported? That should save you quite a bunch of work.
Martin
--
Martin
On Jan 13, 4:38 am, ma...@ntp.isc.org (Danny Mayer) wrote:
I was very specific here: I won't support Windows 2000 and IPv6. I did
not say anything about not supporting Windows 2000 with IPv4.
There is nothing more difficult about supporting IPv6 on Windows 2000
from a code perspective, since
On Jan 13, 5:39 am, Steve Kostecke koste...@ntp.org wrote:
On 2009-01-13, Dave Hart daveh...@gmail.com wrote:
Just build a binary that requires WinXP/Windows Server 2003 or
The NTP Project releases The NTP Reference Implementation only as source
code.
Steve Kostecke koste...@ntp.org
NTP
On Jan 13, 4:42 am, ma...@ntp.isc.org (Danny Mayer) wrote:
Dave Hart wrote:
On Jan 12, 6:52 pm, ma...@ntp.isc.org (Danny Mayer) wrote:
And line 340-341 makes it clear that it's doing it's own lookups:
// there was a new CNAME, look again.
WspiapiSwap(pszName, pszAlias, pszScratch);
Martin Burnicki wrote:
Danny,
I think I still have the dynamic DLL function import code lying around.
Should I try to add it to the current ntp-dev so you just had to care about
calling the functions and evaluating the results to see if IPv6 is
supported? That should save you quite a bunch
Guys,
Dave Hart wrote:
I also note ports/winnt/include/config.h has this bit:
/*
* VS.NET's version of wspiapi.h has a bug in it
* where it assigns a value to a variable inside
* an if statement. It should be comparing them.
* We prevent inclusion since we are not using this
* code
Martin Burnicki wrote:
[]
Here are a few thoughts:
[]
5.) Finally, in order to be able to distribute a single binary which
can be run on Windows with or without support for IPv6 the program
fully needs to check at runtime whether IPv6 support is available, or
not. I.e. it first has to try to
Terje Mathisen wrote:
Dave Hart wrote:
On Jan 11, 6:04 pm, ma...@ntp.isc.org (Danny Mayer) wrote:
Dave Hart wrote:
I am not suggesting you to go referencing Wsp* functions willy-nilly
to avoid some perceived (and insignificant) overhead of using
published APIs. I'm suggesting you use the
On Jan 12, 6:52 pm, ma...@ntp.isc.org (Danny Mayer) wrote:
And line 340-341 makes it clear that it's doing it's own lookups:
// there was a new CNAME, look again.
WspiapiSwap(pszName, pszAlias, pszScratch);
That also means that it is not using the resolvers since CNAME restart
is the job of
Dave Hart wrote:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms738520(VS.85).aspx
I'm very careful to avoid the WSP* functions. I don't think many people
know about the WSP* functions but I am very careful to avoid them as far
as possible especially as there are potential security implications.
Dave Hart wrote:
On Jan 11, 6:04 pm, ma...@ntp.isc.org (Danny Mayer) wrote:
Dave Hart wrote:
I am not suggesting you to go referencing Wsp* functions willy-nilly
to avoid some perceived (and insignificant) overhead of using
published APIs. I'm suggesting you use the published API names like
On Jan 11, 10:41 pm, Terje Mathisen terje.mathi...@hda.hydro.com
wrote:
Dave, I was inclined to agree with you that these headers do look like
what we need, functionality-wise they look spot on, but when I started
to read the code I found some ugly stuff, i.e.:
[...]
I.e. the _very_ first
Dave Hart wrote:
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 2:30 PM, Danny Mayer ma...@ntp.isc.org
mailto:ma...@ntp.isc.org wrote:
We do have code for this. I won't use Microsoft's code though except the
standard API code. It's a matter of getting it back in. There is one
item that may yet cause me
On Jan 10, 7:03 am, ma...@ntp.isc.org (Danny Mayer) wrote:
We want to use the API's where they are available but use the emulations
where they are not. You can't do that with Microsoft's source code, you
would only get that emulation. We build once and deploy many and you
want to take
Dave Hart wrote:
On Jan 10, 7:03 am, ma...@ntp.isc.org (Danny Mayer) wrote:
We want to use the API's where they are available but use the emulations
where they are not. You can't do that with Microsoft's source code, you
would only get that emulation. We build once and deploy many and you
On Jan 10, 7:02 pm, ma...@ntp.isc.org (Danny Mayer) wrote:
Dave Hart wrote:
On Jan 10, 7:03 am, ma...@ntp.isc.org (Danny Mayer) wrote:
We want to use the API's where they are available but use the emulations
where they are not. You can't do that with Microsoft's source code, you
would
We do have code for this. I won't use Microsoft's code though except the
standard API code. It's a matter of getting it back in. There is one
item that may yet cause me grief but that's a matter of figuring
everything out.
Danny
Dave Hart wrote:
On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 7:19 PM, Danny Mayer
Dave Hart wrote:
On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 7:19 PM, Danny Mayer ma...@ntp.isc.org wrote
to questions@lists.ntp.org and me:
Not yet. It's on my list of things to complete in the near future. There
are two pieces that need to be changed and one of them may be tricky
though I seem to remember
I am running Meinberg's Win32 binaries on Windows Server 2003:
ntpd 4.2@beijing-o Sep 01 9:15:56 (UTC+02:00) 2008 (10)
It appears to me there is no support for IPv6 in these binaries. I'm
guessing the work simply hasn't been done in the reference
implementation to support IPv6 on Windows.
Dave Hart wrote:
I am running Meinberg's Win32 binaries on Windows Server 2003:
ntpd 4.2@beijing-o Sep 01 9:15:56 (UTC+02:00) 2008 (10)
It appears to me there is no support for IPv6 in these binaries. I'm
guessing the work simply hasn't been done in the reference
implementation to
On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 7:19 PM, Danny Mayer ma...@ntp.isc.org wrote
to questions@lists.ntp.org and me:
Not yet. It's on my list of things to complete in the near future. There
are two pieces that need to be changed and one of them may be tricky
though I seem to remember that Martin had put
28 matches
Mail list logo
