I admire your persistence. A quick look through several IOS versions'
command references, and the master command reference on CCO all indicate
that only a particular subset of the commands you mention below exist. that
suggests to me that any responses other than the documented !.U&?CI may have
been put there for the software and networking guys' testing purposes.
also, somewhere in the 11.x range, ping was taken from the system management
section to the troubleshooting section, for whatever reason. it was of minor
interest to see how the documentation has evolved over time. going back to
the 8.x and 9.x versions I saw a generally quite different organizational
structure.
They teach us in CCIE class to use the doc CD ( CCO univerCD ) and drill
down. Obviously there are limitations to that approach. Were you checking
the TAC pages?
Chuck
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
Priscilla Oppenheimer
Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2001 8:44 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: ping replies [7:10910]
I have seen E also, but only with AppleTalk. AppleTalk ping is AEP. IPX
ping has two versions -- Cisco proprietary and Novell compatible. As far as
the other pings and trace routes, I don't know! I intend to find out though!
In answer to the implied (from Chuck ;-) question as to why I should care
about Cisco's implementation and documentation for ping being bad....
Well, I admit Cisco has more important things to worry about. But, what
command gets used the most on a Cisco router? Maybe show ip route. But I
bet it's ping. Why can't they output the results in plain language. Sure we
have all gotten used to !!!, but why can't it just say "reply?" And why has
the documentation for years claimed that all those other character codes
can happen even though they don't seem to happen?
OK, I'm not going to go so far as to say that Cisco should have a GUI, ugh,
but get with the times, for heavens sake. Maybe configuring class-based
weighted-fair queuing, or policy routing, or dial peers, has to be
complicated, but using ping doesn't have to be!
And while I'm at it, why is the documentation for ping, buried in the
System Management documentation. Couldn't it be somewhere obvious? And even
in that documentation, the character codes couldn't be found (if I recall).
I had to use the index to find the 20 different versions of the character
code table.
Using the index did cause me to learn something else. Did you know that
there is an SNA ping? It opens an APPC session.
Priscilla
At 02:24 AM 7/4/01, nrf wrote:
>I have seen an 'E', but only with failed Appletalk pings, never in IP.
>
>Question (slightly off-topic, my apologies, Priscilla) - does anybody know
>exactly how Cisco implements ping and trace in non-IP protocols? With
>Appletalk, I presume it has something to do with AEP, but how about a IPX
>trace, what's going on there? Or a Decnet/Vines/Apollo/CLNS/XNS ping,
>what's up with those?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>""Priscilla Oppenheimer"" wrote in message
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > As we all know, ping is really an ICMP echo. There are many possible
ICMP
> > replies. Now, Cisco could tell the user of the Cisco IOS ping command
the
> > actual reply received, but instead they output a character code.
(Wouldn't
> > want to make the product intuitive, now would we?) I'm trying to get
more
> > data on the character codes.
> >
> > This is not a newbie question. Don't send me the chart of ping reply
>codes.
> > I've already seen about 20 versions of the chart. I'm trying to figure
out
> > what routers really display and why there are so many versions of the
> > chart. Putting together all versions of the chart (plus the A code that
we
> > have all seen but is not listed in Cisco documentation, as far as I can
> > tell), I have developed this list:
> >
> > ! An ICMP echo reply was received.
> > . The sending router or switch timed out while waiting for a reply.
> > U A destination unreachable response was received.
> > N A network unreachable response was received.
> > H A host unreachable response was received.
> > P A protocol unreachable response was received.
> > M Fragmentation was needed and the don't fragment (DF) bit was set.
> > & A time-to-live exceeded message was received.
> > I The user interrupted the test.
> > A The ping was administratively prohibited (blocked by an access list
> > probably).
> > Q A source quench response was received.
> > ? An unknown packet was received.
> > C A packet was received with the congestion-experienced bit set.**
> >
> > Questions:
> >
> > Has anyone ever seen N, H, or P? It seems to me that Cisco just outputs
U
> > if the router receives network, host, or protocol unreachable.
> >
> > Has anyone ever seen M? I couldn't get this to happen in my lab. Is M
even
> > for real or was that an error in one of the versions of the
documentation?
> >
> > Has anyone every seen &? I couldn't get that one to happen either.
> >
> > How about I? That doesn't happen on my routers. Plus one version of the
> > documentation said it was |, not I.
> >
> > And how about the mysterious C? I found out that it's related to RFC
2481,
> > an experimental protocol that adds explicit congestion notification to
IP.
> > Maybe some internal developer asked for this. Cisco clearly favors
helping
> > developers troubleshoot over helping customers troubleshoot. (Sorry, but
> > this ping research has made me angry at Cisco.)
> >
> > Thanks for your help.
> >
> > Priscilla
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________
> >
> > Priscilla Oppenheimer
> > http://www.priscilla.com
________________________
Priscilla Oppenheimer
http://www.priscilla.com
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=11011&t=10910
--------------------------------------------------
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
