Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

D-Link Settles Danish Time Dispute

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the cash-out-your-chips-now dept.

igb writes "The Register reports that DLink has settled the time server dispute described a little over a month ago here on Slashdot. They're going to stop using an NTP server they're not really authorized to chime with, and they've reached an amicable settlement over the use by existing products. The details of the settlement are, not unsurprisingly, somewhat vague, but let's hope that the good guys aren't out of pocket any more."

7 of 192 comments (clear)

  1. They should've known better... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    than to challenge a Time Lord!

  2. Netgear did the same thing a few years ago by dananderson · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Netgear did the same thing with the University of Wisconsin Internet NTP's servers.

    It's strange these companies can't afford to set up a few of their own NTP servers instead of overloading servers that don't have the bandwidth. It it's because they are clueless or they are cheap?

    1. Re:Netgear did the same thing a few years ago by wowbagger · · Score: 5, Informative
      It it's because they are clueless or they are cheap?


      Yes, and yes. They are clueless, and they are cheap.

      That is why pool.ntp.org was created - to provide a pool of NTP servers that these bozos can use without hammering anybody's server too badly.
      --
      www.eFax.com are spammers
    2. Re:Netgear did the same thing a few years ago by MikeBabcock · · Score: 5, Informative

      These situations make no sense to me. The NTP system is very easy to use properly.

      There's a great little website about how to use ntp.org servers properly.

      For the quick-fix people, point your NTP capable system at pool.ntp.org.

      If you live in north america, you can use the north-america.pool.ntp.org dns name instead, for only north american servers. The same applies to other continents and several country codes.

      Basically, there's no excuse for hard-coding a time server in almost any situation, unless your client is completely incapable of DNS and has no access to external DNS servers.

      --
      - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
  3. They already lost at least $120 in sales by Omnifarious · · Score: 5, Interesting

    And likely more. I've been telling my friends not to buy them, and I know of at least one buying decision that was made specifically for that reason that cost them $120 worth of sales of USB wireless adapters.

    --
    Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
  4. not unsurprisingly by boldtbanan · · Score: 5, Funny
    The details of the settlement are, not unsurprisingly, somewhat vague...
    I do not think that means what you think it means
  5. Re:Public? Server by freshman_a · · Score: 5, Insightful

    His NTP server access policy explicitly limited use of said server to the Danish Internet Exchange (DIX). In return, DIX provided him with a free internet connection for his NTP server. Because D-Link was sucking so much bandwidth, DIX told Kamp he would have to pay yearly for the connection. D-Link disregarded his server policy and abused his server. That's why it's a problem.

    Also, his server is a Stratum 1, and, while not explicitly written, the D-Link devices should getting the time via a Stratum 2 server. At least, that's how it's commonly done.

    Does that help explain things better?

    --
    Slackware