From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sandelman.ca (relay.cooperix.net [67.23.6.41]) by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5687200A76 for ; Tue, 21 Aug 2012 13:45:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sandelman.ca (24-139-16-154.eastlink.ca [24.139.16.154]) by relay.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B13BD8659; Tue, 21 Aug 2012 16:40:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from sandelman.ca (quigon.sandelman.ca [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE8EECA0CB; Mon, 20 Aug 2012 19:19:27 -0400 (EDT) From: Michael Richardson To: cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net In-reply-to: References: <502E064C.50305@etorok.net> <502E9609.5040800@etorok.net> <9246.1345321014@sandelman.ca> Comments: In-reply-to George Lambert message dated "Mon, 20 Aug 2012 16:41:48 -0400." X-Mailer: MH-E 8.3; nmh 1.3; XEmacs 21.4 (patch 22) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 19:19:27 -0400 Message-ID: <19070.1345504767@sandelman.ca> Sender: mcr@sandelman.ca Subject: Re: [Cerowrt-devel] cerowrt 3.3.8-17: nice latency improvements, some issues with bind X-BeenThere: cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: Development issues regarding the cerowrt test router project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 20:45:58 -0000 --=-=-= >>>>> "George" == George Lambert writes: George> Check and set the time by syncing to NTP Servers - not user supplied times George> if the network George> is available. to see if they have set times > those set by NTP Server George> http://tf.nist.gov/tf-cgi/servers.cgi George> The global address *time.nist.gov* is resolved to all of the server George> addresses below in a round-robin sequence to equalize the load across all George> of the servers. Good idea, but you need DNS to find that server, and you need time to do DNSSEC. If the time is set years into the future, then DNSSEC may also fail, as the signatures would be too old. Accepting that might be a problem. If the time can be set like this by an operator, then there is a problem, and an operator will have to deal with it. It's best to stick to what we can do automatically. -- Michael Richardson -at the cottage- --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAABAgAGBQJQMsX+AAoJEKD0KQ7Gj3P2BW4H/2WX+CqdGRsssudVZuo361O/ 2OUYuaPjlKDgd8wneqeniMJ2T7lNd59V+ERT0iQaAPIa7dLBqBPWlFuK77FrFh3w PnWP70tQp9mGwQ7UMBy9IUrfqRwF4r8VNCC2BwPvJ/6Kro3kbMwd7Cv9OPnjaO/Z FPB1SMVPKXSp3Eke7JryZlu2M8SMkX/Vk8W8yR/jQhwHXU3hwRazaRkEu7fq2Pbr l3nioR3aS4fc1RFwuAR14qCaXUanfnrQoYaUNlEWDRObYNpl995qkJZSn7DU5ZiL Fcn0p8Vcc0pYR5/0Gpftcg+ovrPLP3bZSUldnWWtsr6ML2vDSWNX9ZIVcnVitmg= =618z -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--