[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I might point out that ICMP is sort of a sub-part of the IP protocol...
> below TCP or UDP (something else I'd like to see in REBOL). Ping is quite
> trivial to implement down at that level... but one must be able to access
> the low-level stuff. I dunno if that's even possible in REBOL. I don't
> appreciate what the security aspects would be... especially if one could
> enable/disable the ping response as desired. I'd love to see more low-level
> ability/control in REBOL!
Sorry for being offtopic in regard to this thread, but where does Netware
IPX/SPX protocol lays in all that protocol hierarchy? Just asking, as REBOL for
Netware is planned ...
Thanks,
-pekr-
>
>
> There are definitely ways of knowing if your "connected to a host".. but
> ping doesn't require a connection... why it's so nice.
>
> Russ
>
> -------------------------------------
> At 11:32 AM 9/30/99 -0500, you wrote:
> >ping uses the ICMP Echo Message sent out and then gets back an ICMP
> >ECHO_RESPONSE.
> >
> >I think there are security access concerns they have about allowing this
> >to be done directly.
> >
> >There are other ways to see if you are connected to a host besides using
> >a ping application.
> >
> >There was discussion about this earlier in the ML, but I would have to
> >search...
> >
> >Steve Shireman
> >
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >>
> >> I was wondering the same thing about a simple ping.
> >>
> >> What is the RFC that describes? Can't find it. Query tool of RFC's kept
> telling
> >> me
> >> about ship"ping" and stop"ping" and stam"ping". .. but not whole world
> "ping".
> >>
> >> ping seems like with would be very simple... but is there an RFC that
> describes
> >> the true "ping" requirements??
> >
> >
> >
