Re: [9fans] bug or feature ? --- ip/ping -6

erik quanstrom once said: > unfortunately, the simlification removes the code that solves an important > use case. it's important to be able to specify the protocol or network stack, > such as in > > ip/ping /net.alt/icmp!someaddress Most commands use an -x option

Re: [9fans] bug or feature ? --- ip/ping -6

> erik quanstrom once said: > > unfortunately, the simlification removes the code that solves an important > > use case. it's important to be able to specify the protocol or network > > stack, > > such as in > > > > ip/ping /net.alt/icmp!someaddress > > Most

Re: [9fans] bug or feature ? --- ip/ping -6

> "most" commands do not. for example, > > cpu -h /net.alt/tcp!ladd.quanstro.net > it turns out i had a bit of extra time since it's too icy to leave the house. :-( anyway, here are all the programs that take -x mntpt, as determined by the man pages. vnc(1) vncs

Re: [9fans] bug or feature ? --- ip/ping -6

your ipv4 "embedding" doesn't need to be part of the ping tool. it's not commonly used anyway. allowing the ping tool to do dns lookups on the other hand are a common convenience.

Re: [9fans] bug or feature ? --- ip/ping -6

unfortunately, the simlification removes the code that solves an important use case. it's important to be able to specify the protocol or network stack, such as in ip/ping /net.alt/icmp!someaddress the diff is here and i'll be working on a patch. the basic idea is to translate only the

Re: [9fans] bug or feature ? --- ip/ping -6

> i spent some time thinking about this problem. > > the purpose of -6 is to force icmpv6. (one can use a v4 address > with icmpv6, that works due to ipv4 embedding.) this is not the same as > controlling name lookup. since there are better more flexible tools > for doing that by hand. the

Re: [9fans] bug or feature ? --- ip/ping -6

On Sun Jan 3 13:42:21 PST 2016, 23h...@gmail.com wrote: > your ipv4 "embedding" doesn't need to be part of the ping tool. it's > not commonly used anyway. i think the attribution here is false. i read the man page for that information. in any event, ping as patched is wrong. addresses like

Re: [9fans] bug or feature ? --- ip/ping -6

-4 and -6 should error when used with an ip of the wrong type. when used with domains correct behavior should be trivial and if there's no dns response for A or it should error once again.

Re: [9fans] bug or feature ? --- ip/ping -6

unfortunately, there is some imprecision when mixing -4 and -6 with names, and i don't have a tidy solution. also, the man page claims that the biggest an icmp packet could possibly be is 8192 bytes, which is incorrect. icmp is fragmented like any other ip packet, so the maximum payload is

Re: [9fans] bug or feature ? --- ip/ping -6

on reading the man page, i found a small flaw in the implementation. according to the man page, -6 forces is of icmp6, even if the address is icmp4. i changed ping to do that.as a result, i added a -4 flag which forces the ping to use icmp4. obviously, there is no native 6-in-4, so this is

Re: [9fans] bug or feature ? --- ip/ping -6

> I would display the IP address once only, rather on every line; as it > is a common factor. It's common only until it isn't. If an intermediate router doesn't like your packet it might choose to respond, in which case your intended target doesn't get to. At least that's why the Unix version

Re: [9fans] bug or feature ? --- ip/ping -6

I would display the IP address once only, rather on every line; as it is a common factor. -Steve > On 30 Dec 2015, at 15:26, Kurt H Maier wrote: > >> On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 03:05:33PM +, Steve Simon wrote: >> If I where redesigning ping I wouldn't repeat any info that

Re: [9fans] bug or feature ? --- ip/ping -6

On Wed, 30 Dec 2015 23:36:22 GMT "Steve Simon" wrote: > > It is not a common factor if you ping broadcast. > > Yep, fair point. If you're pinging plan9 machines, printing source address is not useful as they sebd ping replies with source = broadcast ip address. You have to

Re: [9fans] bug or feature ? --- ip/ping -6

> It is not a common factor if you ping broadcast. Yep, fair point. I admit I have never done a ping broadcast. I did hear a story of somone who (in the early days of ethernet) built a ping broadcast packet, with the source address of the broadcast address. This resulted in the mother of all

Re: [9fans] bug or feature ? --- ip/ping -6

It is not a common factor if you ping broadcast. That is, the local address is common, the remote is not. joushou > On 30 Dec 2015, at 20:05, Steve Simon wrote: > > I would display the IP address once only, rather on every line; as it is a > common factor. > > -Steve >

Re: [9fans] bug or feature ? --- ip/ping -6

hello, I did nothing about original ping options, so they should work as they have been. I am afraid I have removed too much. the new ping is here. test, please. ping.c Description: Binary data > 2015/12/31 7:43、Kenny Lasse Hoff Levinsen のメール： > > It is not a

Re: [9fans] bug or feature ? --- ip/ping -6

On 30 December 2015 at 12:48, arisawa wrote: > code is simplified. It works better, but it's smaller? With luck, you might start a trend!

Re: [9fans] bug or feature ? --- ip/ping -6

If I where redesigning ping I wouldn't repeat any info that is common on each line - I.e. ip addresses or the column titles: rtt, ave etc. consider plan9's ps(1) which has no column titles. they are described in the man page and are obvious from the context once you have read the man page once.

Re: [9fans] bug or feature ? --- ip/ping -6

On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 03:05:33PM +, Steve Simon wrote: > If I where redesigning ping I wouldn't repeat any info that is common on each > line - I.e. ip addresses or the column titles: rtt, ave etc. > > consider plan9's ps(1) which has no column titles. they are described in the > man page

Re: [9fans] bug or feature ? --- ip/ping -6

arisawa once said: > is this a feature or a bug? It looks like a bug to me. The code in /sys/src/cmd/ip/ping.c:/^isv4name is too clever for it's own good. Anthony