From owner-freebsd-hackers  Tue Jan  9 22:21:48 1996
Return-Path: owner-hackers
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id WAA11869
          for hackers-outgoing; Tue, 9 Jan 1996 22:21:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from time.cdrom.com (time.cdrom.com [192.216.222.226])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id WAA11843
          for <hackers@freebsd.org>; Tue, 9 Jan 1996 22:21:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by time.cdrom.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) with SMTP id WAA03337; Tue, 9 Jan 1996 22:20:52 -0800
To: grog@lemis.de (Greg Lehey)
cc: hackers@freebsd.org (FreeBSD Hackers)
Subject: Re: Using `ping' to diagnose network connections reasonable? 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 09 Jan 1996 22:48:10 +0100."
             <199601092148.WAA23824@allegro.lemis.de> 
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 1996 22:20:52 -0800
Message-ID: <3335.821254852@time.cdrom.com>
From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com>
Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org
Precedence: bulk

> In each of these cases, your ping check may come to an incorrect
> conclusion.  Pinging is nice for an approximation, but it's no
> substitute for the real thing.

I'm going to think about this..  I may simply offer the user a little
`network tester' they can pop up and get to do a few canned operations
(ping / DNS query / ftp).  Interpretation of the results will be more
or less left to them! :-)

					Jordan