On Fri, Aug 31, 2001 at 03:34:09PM -0700, David O'Brien wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 30, 2001 at 11:21:09PM +0100, Steve Roome wrote:
> > ping http://www.myserver.wherever/
> > instead of telnet wherever 80, just to see if I get a connected or
> > not ?
>
> Do you have *ANY* clue how ping works? Ping uses ICMP packets; not TCP,
> not UDP -- thus there is NO concept of ports. And what does "instead of
> telnet mean"?? Again, do you have any clue how ping works?
I certainly understand that ping currently works on ICMP, and that a
feature enhancement to allow it to use a different type of packet
might be, perhaps to some, a useful addition to its capability.
Considering, for example, that an ICMP packet may take a very
different route to (and hence time to reach) the destination machine
comparted to a TCP/IP packet containing http information it might not
be such a bad idea. e.g. Transparent web proxies.
Had you read the thread of course, you may have noticed that I was
merely replying to someone else who has asked about this sort of
functionality. But feel free to take a dig at _me_ anyway, I won't be
frightened away from it all just yet. Luckily I'm not a new user who's
going to take harshly and hate us bloody arrogant unix zealots though.
> To the person that wants to "traceroute http://www.myserver.wherever/";,
> do you have *ANY* clue how traceroute works? You cannnot use a port that
> something is answering on.
Again, if you've got a transparent web proxy in the way, this would be
a really nice feature. I've not got a clue how to implement it though,
it would probably involve changing the way rather a lot of network
hardware works, I just commented on it.
Steve
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
