On Fri, 31 Aug 2001, David O'Brien wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 31, 2001 at 09:58:21AM -0700, Richard Hodges wrote:
> > > On the other hand, what exactly is http://www.ufp.org supposed to be useful
> > > for when www.ufp.org is the same thing.
> >
> > Why not parse it literally? For instance, http://www.ufp.org
> > would imply TCP, dest port 80, and host www.ufp.org.
> >
> > For ping, that would imply that I want to test the three-way
> > handshake on whatever is listening on port 80 at www.ufp.org
>
> Do you have *ANY* clue how ping works??? It doesn't use TCP, for
> starters...
Duh! I KNOW that ping uses ICMP echo request. This thread is
about a "what if" situation, and I was simply carrying to what
I think was the logical conclusion. Did I claim that this would
be a useful feature? NO!
If you get a spare moment, why don't you (re)read Jonathon Swift's
"A modest proposal". It's a good read.
> > For traceroute, I want to send a series of TCP SYN packets to
> > www.ufp.org, port 80 with increasing TTL values. Perhaps this
> > would be a way to test connectivity to a service behind a firewall.
>
> Do you know how traceroute works?? For one, the destination host cannot
> be listening on the port used. And you know that each progressive
> traceroute packet sent out bumps the destination port by one, to help
> trace the ICMP "time exceeded" / "port unreachable" responses.
David, you obviously know a lot of things, but having a sense of
humor would be of great help here.
Jeez...
-Richard
-------------------------------------------
Richard Hodges | Matriplex, inc.
Product Manager | 769 Basque Way
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | Carson City, NV 89706
775-886-6477 | www.matriplex.com
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
