25 Nov
2021
25 Nov
'21
9:29 p.m.
Oh...? Well, what's a 'whoops' between hackers?? (the good olde
fashioned kind)
I went to the web page and, of course, understood the working solution
to put the 'disappeared' host names into the /etc/hosts.? That's a
standard thing to do on Windows and any Unix flavor I can think of.?
Personally, I think it is a win.? The one place where you /can't/ do it
as easily is on a PANDA Tops-20 distribution, which will check the
domain _first_ and wait for that resolve to time out before checking the
local hosts file (SYSTEM:HOSTS.TXT).
So that means you have to /wait/ for the time out, which, whatever
duration that happens to be is far too long for me.? It's quite
infuriating, actually. SYSTAT immediately knows, yet finger appears to
hang and mail delivery slows to a crawl.? You can't know how to
remediate unless you happen to be familiar with the source code.? Humph...
Avoiding the time out means you have to put whatever host you want into
the domain files, the format of which is both arcane and poorly
documented.? And then whack the resolver.? Now you have two files to
keep in sync.? That was one argument that I never won with MRC as having
it the other way around seemed to me to be easiest for everyone.
I finally edited my local copy of HSTNAM to not drive me crazy and also
gave DECnet hosts priority, which then turned up a gap in Tops-20.
HSTNAM /really/ wants the node number, even though the average user
can't do a blessed thing with it.? If it doesn't get a number, then
it...well, makes something up.? Of course, fixing all this broke
something else in MMAILR, which is another rabbit hole I have yet to get
myself out of.
This all being said, would the correct assumption be that HP is looking
to pull its Stratum-1 server or just cut down traffic?? I can't remember
where I read this, but apparently Stratum-1 servers get *a lot* of
traffic, so maybe HP didn't want to burn that bandwidth any more.?? Or...?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 11/25/21 7:39 AM, David Moylan wrote:
This is my fault. I checked that NTP was running on 204.123.2.72 and
then just googled it to find the name.
I found a hit on a page on ntp.org with the name usno.hpl.hp.com and
just assumed it was valid.
Turns out it has no name. This was a Stratum 1 server originally, but
the page found by google is not actively linked on the official
ntp.org.list
This appears to have happened in more recent times. I can find
references to it from 2019 where it appears it may have been in the
process of being phased out.
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/tz/2019-July/028303.html
cheers, Wiz!!
*From:*owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE <owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE> *On
Behalf Of *Thomas DeBellis
*Sent:* Tuesday, 23 November 2021 2:16 AM
*To:* hecnet at Update.UU.SE
*Subject:* Re: [HECnet] A USNO GPS network time server is now in
operation at Digital Equipment Corporation, Palo Alto, CA
I'm not sure I'm following all this.
I didn't see that usno.hpl.hp.com exists, see below.? There doesn't
appear to be any DNS name associated with the IP address.? It does
respond to a ping.
$ *ping -c 4 usno.hpl.hp.com*
ping: cannot resolve usno.hpl.hp.com: Unknown host
$ *nslookup 204.123.2.72 *
;; Got SERVFAIL reply from 68.237.161.12, trying next server
;; Got SERVFAIL reply from 71.243.0.12, trying next server
Server:??????? 192.168.22.1
Address:??? 192.168.22.1#53
** server can't find 72.2.123.204.in-addr.arpa: SERVFAIL
$ *ping -c 4 204.123.2.72 *
PING 204.123.2.72 (204.123.2.72): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 204.123.2.72: icmp_seq=0 ttl=53 time=76.880 ms
64 bytes from 204.123.2.72: icmp_seq=1 ttl=53 time=69.378 ms
64 bytes from 204.123.2.72: icmp_seq=2 ttl=53 time=70.053 ms
64 bytes from 204.123.2.72: icmp_seq=3 ttl=53 time=69.613 ms
I checked the IP address and host name against a number of DNS
servers.? It does not respond to a time request on port 37
10:06:31 USER?? Site Greenwich Mean Time ->? Local Time Zone
10:06:31 USER Difference????? Delay
10:06:31 USER?? VENTI2????????? 22-Nov-2021 15:06:31 ->? 22-Nov-2021
10:06:31-EST
10:06:31 USER?? time.nist.gov?????????? Error in TCP receive.
10:06:31 USER?? wwv.nist.gov??????????? 22-Nov-2021 15:06:31?
->???????????????? :00
10:06:31 USER?? utcnist.colorado.edu 22-Nov-2021 15:06:31?
->???????????????? :00
10:06:41 USER *204.123.2.72??????????? timed out.*
10:06:41 USER?? time.maconbibb.us?????? timed out.
10:06:41 USER?? nist.netservicesgroup.com?????? timed out.
10:06:41 USER
10:06:41 USER?????????????????? Average difference????????????????????
:00
10:06:41 USER?????????????????? Average clock time????? 22-Nov-2021
10:06:31-EST
10:06:41 USER?????????????????? Time spent surveying = 18.131 seconds.
Getting time on TCP port 37 is /old/.? I only do it because that is
all I have until such time as I port something smarter.? Note the
following from NIST: "We will continue to support the "TIME" protocol
that uses TCP port 37 for the forseeable future."? So not responding
on port 37 might not be a false negative, if only NTP is supported.
On 11/20/21 8:39 PM, David Moylan wrote:
That IP address space is now owned by HP and this NTP host is now known as
usno.hpl.hp.com
Side note: the dec.com domain name was sold by HP and is now owned by Paul Kocher.
(He's one of the people that discovered the Spectre vulnerability in x86
CPU's.)
I've been in touch with Paul about dec.com and he told me that he's not
interested in selling it or passing it across to any related hobbyist group.
He advised me that he'd purchased it from HP when it was auctioned off.
According to the records, the domain dec.com was sold by Heritage Auctions on July
24th 2014 for $57,500.
In the same auction another person purchased digital.com for $373,750
Cheers, Wiz!!
-----Original Message-----
From:owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE <owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE>
<mailto:owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE> On
Behalf Of Supratim Sanyal
Sent: Sunday, 21 November 2021 9:34 AM
To:hecnet at update.uu.se
Subject: [HECnet] A USNO GPS network time server is now in operation at
Digital Equipment Corporation, Palo Alto, CA
"A USNO GPS network time server is now in operation at Digital Equipment
Corporation, Palo Alto, CA. This is an open-access stratum-1 for the Pacific
Timezone:
usno.pa-x.dec.com??? ?204.123.2.72 (CNAME ntp-dec.usno.navy.mil)"
204.123.2.72 still returns time as stratum 1.
usno.pa-x.dec.com and ntp-dec.usno.navy.mil do not resolve.
Ref: March 1997 revision of:
http://gisweb.massey.ac.nz/topic/webreferencesites/gps/usnavy/ntp.html