From owner-freebsd-hackers Mon Jan 8 09:40:07 1996 Return-Path: owner-hackers Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id JAA23405 for hackers-outgoing; Mon, 8 Jan 1996 09:40:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from DATAPLEX.NET (SHARK.DATAPLEX.NET [199.183.109.241]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with ESMTP id JAA23369 for ; Mon, 8 Jan 1996 09:40:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from [199.183.109.242] by DATAPLEX.NET with SMTP (MailShare 1.0fc5); Mon, 8 Jan 1996 11:40:12 -0600 X-Sender: rkw@shark.dataplex.net Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 8 Jan 1996 11:39:55 -0600 To: "Jordan K. Hubbard" From: rkw@dataplex.net (Richard Wackerbarth) Subject: Re: Using `ping' to diagnose network connections reasonable? Cc: hackers@freebsd.org Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org Precedence: bulk >Is it reasonable to assume that if a host supports forwarding or DNS >queries, it will also answer pings? In general, yes. >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. I don't quite agree. If you indicate that the host is not responding to the "ping" and allow a manual override, I don't really see a problem. ---- Richard Wackerbarth rkw@dataplex.net