Great Circle Associates Firewalls
(June 1997)
 

Indexed By Date: [Previous] [Next] Indexed By Thread: [Previous] [Next]

Subject: Re: Year 2000 compliance
From: blymn @ baea . com . au (Brett Lymn)
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 1997 15:37:45 +0930 (CST)
To: pdrolet @ galea . com
Cc: firewalls @ greatcircle . com
In-reply-to: <852564B6 . 00731FDA . 00 @ superman . galea . com> from "pdrolet @ galea . com" at Jun 14, 97 05:08:42 pm

According to pdrolet @
 galea .
 com:
>
>unsigned 32 bit number would provide EPOCH+136 years, (year 2106)
>
>It think Unix time() can still be reliable for a while...
>

You are not quite correct there - currently the type returned by the
unix time is a SIGNED integer.  To make it anything else will mean a
rebuild of all sorts of things and will probably break some programs
that have made bad assumptions about what time_t really is.

-- 
Brett Lymn, Computer Systems Administrator, British Aerospace Australia
===============================================================================
  What do you get when you cross a cantaloup with a dog?        Melancholy :-P




References:
Indexed By Date Previous: Gauntlet & FW1 told me to do this!??!
From: "Mark A. Bialik" <markb @ pmihwy . com>
Next: RAS-Server in DMZ ?
From: "Kling, Oliver" <oliver . kling @ eurokom . de>
Indexed By Thread Previous: RE: Year 2000 compliance
From: pdrolet @ galea . com
Next: Firewall research paper
From: Scott Kingery <skingery @ isisph . com>

Google
 
Search Internet Search www.greatcircle.com