On Tue, Jan 09, 2007 at 01:37:36PM +0100, Claus Fischer wrote: : On Tue, Jan 09, 2007 at 10:12:59AM +0100, Frans Pop wrote: : : No, it should not. Memory is valuable in the installer environment and : : having ping does not add anything. As Geert already explained, you can : : use wget instead for basic connection testing. : : Not if the next router doesn't run any TCP services, : and you need to test the connection to the next router.
Let me add some arguments: - A small installer is nice, an installer without ping is in some situations almost unusable In fact, a ping of the next router might even be considered standard procedure during network configuration. - The ping/ifconfig commands could perhaps be extern (on CD) - The situation where cable modems require a certain MAC address is not uncommon where I live - When you call support at your ISP, the standard questions are (a) what's your MAC address how do I find that out without ifconfig? (b) can you ping the next router? (c) is your interface configured? For a netinstall image that is dedicated to network installs, the basic networking tool to test connections (ping) is an absolute MUST. The wget workaround is deficient for various reasons: - it operates on TCP, not on IP level - TCP is often routed differently, masqueraded, etc. - many hosts in the connectivity chain do not offer TCP ports known to be open - TCP tests lack the features of ping -R - ping has timing information which is important to judge the quality of the connection - ping sends repeated packets which is important to judge the reliability of the connection In fact, the TCP test is an all-or-nothing test that is not helpful to localize any errors. There's a good reason for the existence of ping. That's why I think that a ping of the next router should be standard user-information of a network installer. Claus -- Claus Fischer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.clausfischer.com/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]