On Fri, 4 May 2001, mouss wrote:
> You apparently misunderstood my saying:)
Apparentlyh so! Sorry- I read it the way I read the private replies I
got on the issue..
> I was talking about the ping program, not the icmp implementation.
>
> more precisely, the ping program on windows prints the address that you
> gave him,
> not the one found in the ICMP response. This may induce one to think he has
I suppose that for those who don't tcpdump while they ping this is a major
issue- does traceroute exhibit the same symptoms (traceroute under Win*
is pure ICMP instead of UDP with ICMP returns or something similar isn't
it?)
> Besides, there is is really no benefit if the ping program prints the
> address you passed it!
Well, while that's true, if that's the host, and an address is really an
alternate "name" for the host, ping should only get an echo reply from the
host- even if it's not on the queried interface. That makes ping less
useful than it should be and the results confusing (for those who know
networking, I'd hazard to guess that multiple responses from multiple
interfaces on a multipathed query would make most admins freak out), but I
can see an argument for working as designed, even though in principle I
agree with you that diagnostic programs should give as much information as
possible. Name to host mappings and things like Solaris ping that just
says "$host is alive" by default probably aren't really good in that
scenerio either.
Paul
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul D. Robertson "My statements in this message are personal opinions
[EMAIL PROTECTED] which may have no basis whatsoever in fact."
-
[To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
"unsubscribe firewalls" in the body of the message.]
