Date: Mon, 8 Jan 1996 17:45:46 +0000 (GMT) From: Doug Rabson <dfr@render.com> To: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com> Cc: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Using `ping' to diagnose network connections reasonable? Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.91.960108174359.482O-100000@minnow.render.com> In-Reply-To: <24751.821114877@time.cdrom.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 8 Jan 1996, Jordan K. Hubbard wrote: > I'd like to add some code to sysinstall which will attempt to > `diagnose' a link before accepting the configuration parameters, > catching a lot of adapter misconfiguration and incorrect data errors > that sysinstall misses now (to fail less gracefully later). My > question is whether or not `ping' is a reasonable way to measure > connectivity between your host and the gateway & dns machines. Is it > reasonable to assume that if a host supports forwarding or DNS > queries, it will also answer pings? What if you've got pings blocked > somehow but allow DNS traffic through? I wouldn't want to flag a host > as `unreachable' when in fact it would have worked fine for its > intended purpose! That would be worse than no error checking at all. Why not just put up a dialog saying 'I am unable to ping <host>; it may be unreachable. Try using it anyway (y/n)?' That way the user gets the feedback and if they know pings are filtered or are just adventurous, they can ignore it. -- Doug Rabson, Microsoft RenderMorphics Ltd. Mail: dfr@render.com Phone: +44 171 251 4411 FAX: +44 171 251 0939
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.91.960108174359.482O-100000>