On 09Feb22, Joe Greco allegedly wrote: > So what people really want is to be able to "ping internet" and so far > the easiest thing people have been able to find is "ping 8.8.8.8" or > some other easily remembered thing.
Yes, I think "ping internet" is the most accurate description thus far. Or perhaps "reach internet". > Does this mean that perhaps we should seriously consider having some > TLD being named "internet" Meaning you need to have a functioning DNS resolver first? I'm sure you see the problem with that clouding the results of a diagnostic test. > service providers register appropriate upstream targets for their > customers, and then maybe also allow for some form of registration such > that if I wanted to provide a remote ping target for AS14536, I could > somehow register "as14536.internet" or "solnet.internet"? Possibly. You'd want to be crystal clear on the use cases. As a starting point, maybe: 1. Do packets leave my network? 2. Do packets leave my ISP's network? 3. Mainly for IOT - is the internet reachable? Because of 2 and 3. I don't think creative solutions such as ISPs any-casting some memorable IP or name will do the trick. And because of 1. anything relying on DNS resolution is probably a non-starter. Much as I like "ping ping.ripe.net" it alone is too intertwined with DNS resolution to be a reliable alternative. > Fundamentally, this is a valid issue. Yup. There are far more home-gamers and tiny network admins (the networks are tiny, not the admins) who just want to run a reachability test or add a command to a cheap network monitor cron job. Those on this list who can - or should - do something more sophisticated are numerically in the minority of people who care about reachability and are not really the target audience for a better "ping 8.8.8.8". > and we'll end up needing a special non-ping client and some trainwreck of > names and > other hard-to-grok I'm not sure the two are fundamentally intertwined tho it could easily be an unintended consequence. However, being constrained to creating a new ping target does severely limit the choices. And including ipv6 just makes that more complicated. The other matter is that the alternative probably has to present a compelling case to cause change in behavior. I can see an industry standard ping target being of possible use to tests built into devices. But again it'd have to be compelling for most manufacturers to even notice. But for humans, I'd be surprised if you can create a compelling alternative ping target. For them, I'd be going down the path of a "ping-internet" command which answers use-cases 1. & 2. while carefully avoiding the second-system syndrome - he says with a laugh. Mark.
