[Top] [All Lists]

Re: missing icmp errors for udp packets

To: Pekka Savola <pekkas@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: missing icmp errors for udp packets
From: Chris Wedgwood <cw@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2001 07:45:47 +1200
Cc: kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, therapy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0107312207040.20518-100000@xxxxxxxxxx>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0107312207040.20518-100000@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.3.18i
On Tue, Jul 31, 2001 at 10:12:12PM +0300, Pekka Savola wrote:

    Me neither.  It would make 'ping -f' testing of your ISP's
    connections rather inconvenient ;-) ...

As someone who until recently was involved in architecture and
planning for a large ISP/carrier who's network spanned 3 continents (I
just like saying that, it sounds better than it really is!) I can
tell you plenty of people use similar tests.

They are bogus.  As is traceroute.

ping & traceroute are very useful, but there results can often be

For example, cisco routers, of which sadly there are a few still in
use, do no respond to ICMP packets terribly reliably when they are
busy, which is pretty reasonable (the route packets instead).


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>