On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 11:10 AM, Tobias Klauser <[email protected]> wrote: > On 2016-04-30 at 16:39:19 +0200, Vadim Kochan <[email protected]> wrote: >> Add 'icmpv4()' function to create ICMPv4 header. >> >> Parameters suported: >> >> type Set type field (default 0: Echo reply) >> code Set code field (default 0) >> csum Set checksum field (calculated by default) >> unused Set 4-byte unused field (default 0) >> mtu Set mtu field for destination unreachable (default 0) >> seq Set sequence field (default 0) >> id Set identifier field (default 0) >> addr Set redirect address (default 0) >> >> The following message types are supported: >> >> net-unreach Set 'Destination network is unreachable' message type >> host-unreach Set 'Destination host is unreachable' message type >> prot-unreach Set 'Destination protocol is unreachable' message >> type >> port-unreach Set 'Destination port is unreachable' message type > > These two can easily be confused or typoed - but see my remark below. > >> net-tos-unreach Set 'Destination network & ToS is unreachable' >> message type >> host-tos-unreach Set 'Destination host & ToS is unreachable' message >> type >> frag-needed Set 'Fragmentation is needed' message type >> route-failed Set 'Source route is failed' message type >> net-unknown Set 'Destination network is unknown' message type >> host-unknown Set 'Destination host is unknown' message type >> host-isolated Set 'Source host isolated' message type >> net-forbidden Set 'Network is adimnistratively prohibited' message >> type >> host-forbidden Set 'Host is administratively prohibited' message >> type >> pkt-filtered Set 'Packet is filtered' message type >> >> net-redirect Set 'Redirect datagram for the network' message type >> host-redirect Set 'Redirect datagram for the host' message type >> net-tos-redirect Set 'Redirect datagram for the ToS & network' >> message type >> host-tos-redirect Set 'Redirect datagram for the ToS & host' message >> type >> >> ttl-timeout Set 'TTL expired in transit' message type >> frag-timeout Set 'Fragment reassembly time exceeded' message type > > IMO it's a bit of an overkill to add an extra keyword for every > (possibly seldomly used) message type. I guess we can expect users to > look up the codes for these particular message types in the RFC in case > they want to use them.
Well, yes, I can get rid of these 'helpers' but I just thought that it might be helpful in case when someone shares the example where it is might be understandable w/o any (I hope)) ) RFC seeking. If you still think it might be 'overkill' that I can just send a minimum enough set of fields, which might be extended later if it will be needed. Thanks, -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "netsniff-ng" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
