>> You’re selecting a very limited subset of ICMP that happens to >> contain a portion of a packet that happens to contain a port >> number (or two). > > It is merely that you don't understand ICMP at all.
Really, it’s not, but I know you like to feel smug and superior, so enjoy that. > See above. The context is TCP. Now there is no context. Previously, there was both a UDP and TCP context and you only addressed TCP as if UDP was irrelevant. > You don't understand UDP, either, at all. Actually, I understand it quite well. >>> That's very elementary explanations on ICMP and UDP. >> Yes, thanks for yet another condescending comment proving that >> you completely missed the point of my post. It's always a pleasure. > > You should really feel indebted to me because it's not a pleasure > for me to answer questions having no valid points. Rest assured that I will not feel slighted in any way if you were to stop doing so. Please feel free to stop at any time. Owen
