Huh
-- J. Hellenthal The fact that there's a highway to Hell but only a stairway to Heaven says a lot about anticipated traffic volume. > On Feb 11, 2022, at 09:10, Tom Beecher <beec...@beecher.cc> wrote: > > 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.
