> > I am disappointed but not surprised to see this discussion on NANOG. > Encouraging Users to use a tool (that is often ignored by the hardware > targeted) by providing a non-revenue-creating special target does not make > business sense. >
To be fair, I don't think this is unique to this community. Plenty of conversations on the IETF lists that are fundamentally the same. ( Proposals to change X or implement standard Y to solve something that is already solvable with current tech and standards. ) Really it's just the complexity of the existing solution that's different. :) On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 9:51 AM james.cut...@consultant.com < james.cut...@consultant.com> wrote: > On Feb 11, 2022, at 8:33 AM, Tom Beecher <beec...@beecher.cc> wrote: > > > The prediciate assumption that "pinging one destination is a valid check > that my internet works' is INCORRECT. There is no magical unicorn that > could be built that could make that true, and 'they're gonna do it anyways' > is a poor excuse to even consider it. > > > The predicate assumption that unsuccessful pinging one destination is a > valid check that my internet DOES NOT work' is ALSO INCORRECT. Still no > magical unicorn. > > I am disappointed but not surprised to see this discussion on NANOG. > Encouraging Users to use a tool (that is often ignored by the hardware > targeted) by providing a non-revenue-creating special target does not make > business sense. > > An allied issue is educating ‘Users’ about traceroute AKA sequential ping > with TTL progression: > > > - Seeing missing or excessively long traceroute results from > intermediate nodes does NOT indicate a real problem, especially when the > target node is reachable with acceptable delay. > > > I’ve lost count of my replies on user forums explaining this issue, even > to otherwise well educated users. > > To be blunt, browsing to amazon.com, apple.com or another vendor site is > a simple and easy to teach Internet aliveness check and, at least, offers > the chance for the targeted vendor site to receive revenue from sales. I > have no crisis of conscience from clicking an vendor shortcut for a basic > end-to-end Internet functional test. Or for teaching a User to do the same. > This meets the business purpose locally and requires no $pecial effort from > Users, network providers, or target systems. This precludes memorization of > IP addresses by end Users thus reducing the offered load from the likes of > excessive ping 8.8.8.8. > > I would expect NANOG members to have favorite ping target addresses based > on their environment, e.g., default router and a few designated targets. > These are useful for manual debugging but, as mentioned previously, are not > suitable as singular input to network monitoring. >
