From owner-freebsd-bugs Sun Aug 3 03:50:04 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id DAA19145 for bugs-outgoing; Sun, 3 Aug 1997 03:50:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from gnats@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id DAA19139; Sun, 3 Aug 1997 03:50:01 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 3 Aug 1997 03:50:01 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199708031050.DAA19139@hub.freebsd.org> To: freebsd-bugs Cc: From: "Bryan K. Ogawa" Subject: Re: bin/4218: change in ping behavior: -c now counts _received_ packets Reply-To: "Bryan K. Ogawa" Sender: owner-freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk The following reply was made to PR bin/4218; it has been noted by GNATS. From: "Bryan K. Ogawa" To: Joerg Wunsch Cc: FreeBSD-gnats-submit@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: bin/4218: change in ping behavior: -c now counts _received_ packets Date: Sun, 3 Aug 1997 03:44:58 -0700 (PDT) On Sun, 3 Aug 1997, J Wunsch wrote: > As bkogawa@primenet.com wrote: > > > /sbin/ping -c now pings until pings are _received_, > > not until pings are sent. > > I agree that this behaviour is not what one would usually expect from > -c, but it seems to be this way in all ping -c versions i've seen so > far. > > What makes you think this has been changed recently? You can easily > verify in CVS that it has been this way all the time for FreeBSD, at > least. So, while you're constantly speaking about `reverting' > something, there isn't really something to revert. Implementing it as > a count of _sent_ packets would be a plain paradigm change, so it > should probably be done with a different option. It looks like I was unknowingly depending on a longstanding bug fixed in 2.2-STABLE. I just checked the version off of the 2.2.2 CD #2: it appears to count pings which error out with "No route to host" as being "received". If I do "ping -q -c 3 206.165.5.104" with PPP off, it does 3 pings, gets 3 "sendto: No route to host"s and then folds up and quits. 2.2-STABLE doesn't do this, matching the manpage (and apparently, the historically correct) behavior. If you'd like to downgrade to feature-request/close this one, please do, unless by some off chance it's _right_ to consider no route to host a reply being received. Thanks for taking the time to clear this up for me. bryan k ogawa http://www.primenet.com/~bkogawa/