D-Link Settles Danish Time Dispute 192
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."
They should've known better... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:They should've known better... (Score:2, Funny)
Netgear did the same thing a few years ago (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re:Netgear did the same thing a few years ago (Score:3, Informative)
I currently use the Argonne national lab NTP server most of the time which is probobly government paid though it could be provided by the University of Chicago (though since my connection is on-campus, it makes the most sense).
Re:Netgear did the same thing a few years ago (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Netgear did the same thing a few years ago (Score:5, Informative)
There's a great little website about how to use ntp.org servers [ntp.org] 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 [ntp.org] 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.
Re:Netgear did the same thing a few years ago (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Netgear did the same thing a few years ago (Score:3, Interesting)
[...]
At this moment, I'm supporting roughly 1500 clients
Somehow, I find this value flawed. On my server [ntp.org], also in the pool, I logged requests from 161683 different IPs within just the first 24 hours after joining the pool; thus, only those who just resolved the name accessed it. Most NTP clients do a DNS lookup only once during the startup, thus I expect the usage to increase over time.
I'm in the pool for just over a month; I'll turn on logging for another day to gather the new d
Re:Netgear did the same thing a few years ago (Score:5, Informative)
In my experience, when starting the 'chronyd' time daemon under Linux, it will poll very often, like 15 seconds intervals. Everytime it gets an answer, it will compare it to the system clock, log the deviation and adjust the system clock speed based on the trend. After some time, the system clock will run really accurate, so the logged deviations will be small. The polling interval will then be increased in steps up to a max. limit of 4 hours. If the computer is restarted, this scenario starts over again.
Compare this to a typical Windows XP computer which seems to poll a time server once a week or so. No doubt that the ntp server will feel some clients more abusive than others.
Disclaimers:
The intervals stated above may be wrong. I haven't tinkered with optimizing my time daemons since the old pay-per-minute ISDN days so my memory is a bit rusty.
Chronyd is just an example. I have no knowledge of whether it stresses the time servers more or less than other time daemons like 'xntpd'.
Re:Netgear did the same thing a few years ago (Score:3, Insightful)
It could, you know, use that information to resolve pool.ntp.org properly.
PS, being a good netizen, I run a public NTP server that is listed on north-america.pool.ntp.org as well as ca.pool.ntp.org (being in Canada and all). I also have all my internal LAN clients query from that server, instead of the outside.
My public ntpd service is using very little memory (let me che
Re:Netgear did the same thing a few years ago (Score:2)
But the request and its denial also consume bandwidth, which was the original problem.
Re:Netgear did the same thing a few years ago (Score:3, Informative)
If you check the original artical, D-Link routers do not recognize the kill request, and they re-request very quickly. So yes, he configured the NTP server correctly, AND he posted restrictions on the NTP site correctly, AND D-Link said we don't care.
It's essentially a DDOS attack on the server. There are thousands of hits with correctly formed NTP requests coming in every second - 98% of which should be directed elsewhere.
Re:Netgear did the same thing a few years ago (Score:2)
Which provides a link to here [freebsd.org] which no longer contains any information.
So D-Link units were making a NTP request, the request was denied by the server, but the D-Link engineers put it in their list of NTP servers anyway?
Re:Netgear did the same thing a few years ago (Score:4, Informative)
Yes, but worse and out of order
Check out NTP.org [ntp.org]. Specifically check the Rules of Engagement [isc.org], The Stratum 1 list [isc.org], and RFC 1305 [faqs.org].
Now looking at everything we have a protocol that involves 2 components, an implimentation component and a social component. The actual implimentation of the protocol is laid first as "Format your request in this fasion and we will return the responce looking like this...". However, it also has things for implimenting request timing fallback and kill requests. The social implimentation of the protocol is layed out in the RoE and the Server Lists - note the regional restrictions and the authorization requests in the server lists.
From the original article which evidently doesn't have any information on the open letter anymore - D-Link took the Stratum 1 list and shoved it into some of their router NTP lookup tables. That blows off the entire social aspect of the protocol - both the permissions and the structure.
Next they implimented only the request portion of the protocol, they ignore the backoff & get lost request structures - essentially forgoing the entire error correction portion incorperated into the RFC. So up to the point of manufacture they have 3 strikes against them,
From memory the conversation then went like this:
Dane: You're routers are hammering my server & they need to stop, you don't have permission & you're violating the rules.
D-Link: How cute, have a nickle & go get yourself some candy.
Dane: WTF? The exchange is going to charge me $8K to cover your protocol violations.
D-Link: It's not our fault & if it is talk to our Lawyer.
Lawyer: I won't talk to you unless you come to CA & argue your case.
At which point it devolved to an open letter & public shaming - which by the way seems to have worked.
[note] IIRC someone calculated the estimated bandwidth from the D-Link routers using Stratum 1 NTP servers to be enough to continously flood a T1. So this isn't just an occasional knock on the door, it's pretty heavy usage for what amounts to a request packet and a responce packet from each router.
Re:Netgear did the same thing a few years ago (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Netgear did the same thing a few years ago (Score:2)
Re:Netgear did the same thing a few years ago (Score:2)
They could use "pool.ntp.org", which is probably cheaper than the effort they currently put into finding NTP servers. Even better, set up some of their own and add them to the pool...
They already lost at least $120 in sales (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.
Re:They already lost at least $120 in sales (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:They already lost at least $120 in sales (Score:2)
Maybe not, but if my effort is widely replicated, it will cost them way more in the long run. Yes, they've rectified the situation, but they had to be dragged into it. They didn't act like good citizens right up front. I will stop complaining about them in about a year or so, but for now...
Re:They already lost at least $120 in sales (Score:2, Informative)
Re:They already lost at least $120 in sales (Score:2)
Their wireless products frequently choke on Mac clients too; and heaven help you if you turn appletalk on.
Usually upgrading or *downgrading* the f/w will resolve the issues, but I prefer dlink or netgear where I don't ever have these problems in the first place.
Re:They already lost at least $120 in sales (Score:2)
Linksys Mac problems (Score:2)
It seems that quite a few people have experienced odd behaviors as a result of interactions between Linksys routers and some Macs.
http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID= 381090&tstart=0 [apple.com]
This thread in particular is about the Mac Book Pro, but I've heard it happens with some other computers also; no clue why or what, but the solution that most people seem to be using is "buy a new router" of a brand other than Linksys. Contributing to this is the general brain-deadedness
Re:Linksys Mac problems (Score:2)
I replaced it with a Microsoft 700-something, and damned if Microsoft didn't make some killer networking hardware-- pity they stopped making it, but this one is at least as robust as the Netgear one, and runs like a champ without me even thinking about it.
Website now changed --prior URLs, please? (Score:2)
Re:They already lost at least $120 in sales (Score:5, Interesting)
I had even more fun letting the D-Link fuckheads know why they were on my blacklist. For two main reasons, the NTP theft of services from all the stratum 1's, and the mac ethernet framing problems. They were told quite clearly the non-response from their engineering team on these two show-stopper problems had left them permanently blacklisted. Its called schadenfreud, and it feels good.
the AC
Re:They already lost at least $120 in sales (Score:3, Insightful)
Did you also stop buying Belkin when they added sw to their routers that, about one week into operation, would randomly redirect a web page request to an advertisement for their filtering service?
How about Linksys? They've done some mean things too.
And every other company out there.
Your tactics will not impact d-link. Not only that, they are unsustainable, if you want to buy any technological equipment, that is. Eventually everyone will be on your lit shist. Then you'll start trying to figure
Re:They already lost at least $120 in sales (Score:2)
You'll always be able to find basic devices (like wireless APs) from thousands of companies. You may have to stay away from the major brands, but you can still probably buy your equipment from the same nameless Chinese company D-Link, Linksys, etc. buy their parts from!
Besides that, there's no reason you have to buy wired/wireless routers from anybody. A litte software on a low-cost embedded board, and you're se
Not Vague At All (Score:5, Insightful)
Part of the settlement involves him putting on his website "D-Link is dedicated to remaining a good corporate and network citizen."
Otherwise, considering his previous level of frustration, there's no chance he would shill for them like that.
Re:Not Vague At All (Score:2)
Granted D-Link could and likely will correct the issue with firmware upgrades most people don't upgrade the firmware unless they are having a problem or maybe if they are redeploying a device. It's likely that in 10 years time there will still be D-Link devices out there trying to query his NTP server.
Re:Not Vague At All (Score:2)
and don't forget that people will probably want to upgrade to get the shiny new lastest wireless 802.11bgnxyz
Re:Not Vague At All (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Not Vague At All (Score:2)
That's about the best track record of any piece of under-$50 networking equipment I can think of, except for maybe hubs and cables.
I've had my share of Linksys gear, and I doubt it'll last anywhere near as long as that: I've had two 54-series routers flake out on me in the last y
Re:Not Vague At All (Score:2)
cisco hardware aint that good, but their support (provided you pay for it) is the best out there... which is why people swear by it. linksys is cisco without the support.
ObPA (Score:2)
Re:Not Vague At All (Score:3, Interesting)
not unsurprisingly (Score:5, Funny)
What I would have done (Score:5, Funny)
Re:What I would have done (Score:4, Funny)
Re:What I would have done (Score:2)
Re:What I would have done (Score:3, Informative)
NTP Pool for Vendors (Score:3, Informative)
This should have been solved with a check. (Score:4, Insightful)
In the scheme of things, and from a marketing perspective, anything else is stupid and a waste of good will.
Re:This should have been solved with a check. (Score:2)
Re:This should have been solved with a check. (Score:2, Informative)
If you RTFA, you'll see that the devices in question are not using DNS. They are using a hardcoded IP address, so DNS would not solve this problem.
Hmmm, "Not unsurprisingly..." (Score:2)
I don't know. I'm just asking. Irregardless, I could care less...
Re:Hmmm, "Not unsurprisingly..." (Score:2)
ian
Re:Hmmm, "Not unsurprisingly..." (Score:2)
I forgot about "not unattractive"
take care,
jeff
I've often wondered about this (Score:2)
I realize a few years back, when bandwidth came at appreciable cost, this might have been the case, but now?
Re:I've often wondered about this (Score:2, Interesting)
Insightful. (Score:2)
Re:I've often wondered about this (Score:2)
For example, I didn't realize until a year or so after I pointed my small home server's NTP to time.nist.gov, that a run-of-the-mill client "wasn't allowed" to point to a Stratum 1 server.
Sure, "ignorance is no excuse," but it was ignorance on my part. I changed it later on, to a Stratum 2 (or maybe 3?) server at a local un
resolved without legal action (Score:2)
Re:resolved without legal action (Score:3, Insightful)
It was also stupid. Why would anyone buy a router from people who can't even get something this simple right?
Poul-Henning Kamp got payed! (Score:4, Informative)
The settlement states that Poul-Henning Kamp must not talk about the history of problems which the D-Link routers caused. But He tells danish press that any future problemes causes by D-link equiptment will be posted around the net
His homepage is http://people.freebsd.org/~phk/ [freebsd.org]
For those in america: Denmark is not the capital of sweden
Re:Poul-Henning Kamp got payed! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Poul-Henning Kamp got payed! (Score:2)
How could people be so clueless? Everyone knows Copenhagen is the captial of Sweden.
Re:Poul-Henning Kamp got payed! (Score:2)
Re:Poul-Henning Kamp got payed! (Score:2)
Also, the language is not "denmarkish", it's danish.
Also, the nation is not "daneland" nor is it "danishia"
Thank you.
-Adam
Re:Poul-Henning Kamp got payed! (Score:2)
Keeping track of it is as watching a tennis match....
They could take advantage of dispute (Score:2)
So, that would be a "better ending" to a legit fight helping their amazingly bad image. I mean, DOSing a public,amateur server with your products and getting mentioned at Slashdot. Can be worse?
It is good ending btw.
Re:They could take advantage of dispute (Score:2, Funny)
Dude! They've already fucked him once. What have you got against the poor guy?
Re:Public? Server (Score:4, Informative)
No.
Public yes, but with permission (Score:3, Informative)
The reason for this is to avoid problems like this, where the NTP server is overloaded or the NTP client is mis-configured and overloads the server or network.
Re:Public? Server (Score:5, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NTP_vandalism [wikipedia.org]
Re:Public? Server (Score:2)
"Have to" in what sense? In the sense that people bitch at you if you don't, then yes. "Have to" in the sense that there is some special rule for NTP servers that allows them to define acceptable use policies without getting a legal agreement, well, that hasn't been resolved.
Re:Public? Server (Score:2)
Re:Public? Server (Score:2)
Re:Public? Server (Score:2)
Why are you asking? Are you stupid enough to think that that's what I said?
Are you somebody who hates open source software and who wants Microsoft and others to be able to shut down open source projects on a whim?
Because that's what it comes down to if you say that Kamp should have been able to sue and win: Debian, Ubuntu, F
Re:Public? Server (Score:2)
What's the difference? Of are you the sort of person that doesn't see a problem?
Re:Public? Server (Score:4, Informative)
[Analogy type=bad]
In the US there are a number of parking spaces set asside for handicapped parking in almost every parking lot. Physically you can park there if you are not handicapped, but you're not supposed to (covers both ignoring restrictions and a client talking to a Stratum 1 server). If the manager of the parking lot tells you to get your car out of the spot - you should do that(refers to the kill request in the NTP protocol). In the real world if it get's this far, the cops come & give you a ticket. On the net you get open letters calling you an arogant prick who can't be bothered to figure out the basics of the protocols you are boasting about
[/Analogy]
For the record the Danish server was not the only Stratum 1 server they hit, they appear to have taken the Stratum 1 list (almost all of which restrict usage to Stratum 2 servers) and shoved it into the routers for general use - hardly the "Good internet citizen" they claim to be.
Re:Public? Server (Score:2)
remote refid st t when poll reach delay offset jitter .GPS. 0 l 14 16 377 0.000 0.026 0.015
*GPS_NMEA(0)
Stratum two talks to the Stratum 1 (so the best you can get without a dedicated clock attached). Stratum three talks to two (fine for diffu
Re:Public? Server (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re:Public? Server (Score:2)
Re:Public? Server (Score:4, Insightful)
Please, stop with stupid analogies. They are never helpful. You can leave your door open all the time, that doesn't give anyone the right to go in! In Vermont, thats criminal trespass, and the fine is much larger than the other forms of trespass defined in the act.
Re:Public? Server (Score:2)
D-Link's use of that poor guy's "free" service that was intended to service about 2,000 organizations in Denmark was costing the guy about $1,000 US a month. I guess that it will be OK with you if next halloween that I bring busloads of kids to your hous
Re:Public? Server (Score:2)
> would his users be inconvenienced, but the users of the D-Link
> product could have been inconvenienced as well. I wonder what the
> downside is when these D-Links can't find the NTP server.
None. The machines would just jump to the next server on the list and hammer that one.
Re:Public? Server (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:There's use, and over-use (Score:2)
No way! I'd go straight to google for an adwords account.
Then I would plan my retirement.
Re:Their reputation preceeds them (Score:5, Informative)
Case in point: we recently put a bunch of DGS-1008D 8-port gigabit switches into service, and immediately started having problems with dropped Ethernet connections. Our laser printer was sucking down enough power at the onset of its fuser-warmup phase to trigger a nearby UPS momentarily. The resulting switchover transient lasted only a few milliseconds, but it was enough to reset the DGS-1008D. After a LOT of tail-chasing, it transpired that the (cheap-ass linear) wall-wart supplies that D-Link ships with the DGS-1008D lack sufficient filter capacitance to absorb even the slightest power glitch under high-load conditions (e.g., when there are several cables plugged into the switch.)
We took a few of their power supplies apart and found that the oldest ones -- which didn't have the problem -- used a 2000-uF filter capacitor at the rectifier output. At some point, they saved 10 cents by moving to a supply with only 1000 uF, rendering their product useless in many real-world office environments.
This isn't supposed to be a general "let's all bag on D-Link" thread, but hey, if the shoe fits...
Re:Their reputation preceeds them (Score:2)
Neg.
Case in point, D-link ASDL modem/router with wireless connection. We just could not get the danm WLAN to work. Tried everything. Security, no security, reboots, firmware upgrades, downgrades, config settings. Nothing worked.
Eventually, just as we were about to throw it out, we figured we'd open it up. Just to look and see if anything was immediately obviously out of order. So we opened her up.
Wait for it.
The antenna cord has popped out of its connecti
Re:Their reputation preceeds them (Score:2)
It's a pretty wimpy circuit, all right. You could also argue that the UPS is a bit too sensitive to transients. But there's no excuse for the switch to be that intolerant of minor power glitches, especially when it's so cheap to do the job right. They had a robust design, but that extra 1000 microfarads must have looked bad on a quarterly balance sheet or something.
Real world sound
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Their reputation preceeds them (Score:2)
Re:Their reputation preceeds them (Score:3, Funny)
Years ago, Bill Gates said 'If only I had $1 for every time a windows server rebooted..'
And the rest is history.
Re:Their reputation preceeds them (Score:2)
And what does Windows do when this ping packet gets dropped?
I ask this because I've ran Windows machines behind some very restrictive firewalls in the past which drop all ICMP type 0 and 8 packets (inbound and outbound), and these machines worked just fine. No booting issues, no network issues. In fact, many ISPs now do this as well.
Can anyone confirm this? I've never noticed a "1-byte ping" to anything within microsoft.com
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Amen - wireless crap (Score:2)
Re:Amen - wireless crap (Score:2)
The Verizon installer specifically mentioned that FIOS TV will require the use of the D-Link router. A statement supported here [aubreyturner.org] by an aware user.
If you plan to get FIOS TV in the future, don't throw that D-Link away.
Having used preview it appears the link above http://www.aubreyturner.org/index.php?/orglog/eyeg lazing_geek_stuff/ [aubreyturner.org] does not accept referrals from Slashdot.
Re:Amen - wireless crap (Score:2)
That's weird (Score:2)
D-Link - DWL-650, DWL-G650, DI-624
The original 650 wasn't a stellar performer but it wasn't horrible. The G650+624 combo was pretty decent. I only returned it in favor of waiting to see where things went as far as MIMO gear.
Belkin - Can't remember, it was a b-only router
Utter crap. Couldn't last more than 2-3 days without crashing. Died permanently in just over a year.
Microsoft - MN500
In true Microsoft tradition, their software may be crap but
Re:Their reputation preceeds them (Score:2)
Re:What about Microsoft? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:What about Microsoft? (Score:2)
http://ntp.isc.org/bin/view/Servers/StratumOneTime Servers [isc.org]
"As the load on the hosts supporting NTP primary (stratum 1) time service is heavy and always increasing, clients should avoid using the primary servers whenever possible."
Just because NIST is being nice about it doesn't mean MS has to include it as a choice.
Re:What about Microsoft? (Score:2)
I wonder why D-Link doesn't use NIST's servers.
Re:What about Microsoft? (Score:2)
Why the hell didn't they provide their own server?
Re:What about Microsoft? (Score:2)