Mon, 19 Sep 88 08:25:28 EDT
> tmallory@PARK-STREET.BBN.COM writes:
> incredibly obnoxious thing to do!
> Opinion: If a reply is sent, then the best response is to insert the IP
> address of the interface over which the packet was received in the source
> address field of the reply.
> Actually, I've found use for sending out broadcast pings. It can be
> very usefull when you are at a node in an internet that for one
> reason or another seems to not hear anymore. Say you are the net
> administrator and don't have a lot of time. Can anyone hear? Throw
> out a broadcast ping and see what you get back. The information can
> be very useful in a gross sort of way.
Gag! Obnoxious is right, I agree with Tracy. There really isn't any
need to flood areas of the network like that with potential ping responses.
An administrator should be permanantly imprinted with a copule of
hosts to ping, preferably one on and one off the local node. That
has always been the quickest way for me to find if the node is down,
or if we just lost both the lines out of it. Usually the node is down,
ever since BBN 'upgraded' the equipment...
The same stands for broadcast messages on an ethernet off a major internet.
Why bother to decipher the information coming back? Just hit a host or
two in order to see if your backbone is still operational. But on a
local ethernet, you aren't dealing with the expense of flooding the area
with packets (unless your net has several thousand computers plugged in...)
The only potential use that I really see for a broadcast ping, and only on
a small local network, is for a facility that wants to keep track of the
current state of each host. A modified ping program could provide an
up/down display for each computer out there.
Have I missed any other major possibilites?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu Mar 09 2000 - 14:43:30 GMT