Anyone willing to write a icmp(8/0) concatenation/concentration/proxy tool ? That can be deployed at the provider edge ?
Catch all the packets !!! -- 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 8, 2022, at 21:18, Mike Hammett <na...@ics-il.net> wrote: > > > What irked me today was an equipment manufacturer. I found out because Google > had some issues handling ICMP to their DNS resolvers today and some of my > devices started spazzing out. > > There's no reason this manufacturer doesn't just setup a variety their own > servers to handle this, other than being lazy. > > > > ----- > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions > > Midwest Internet Exchange > > The Brothers WISP > > From: "Mark Delany" <k...@november.emu.st> > To: "NANOG" <nanog@nanog.org> > Sent: Tuesday, February 8, 2022 5:13:30 PM > Subject: Re: Authoritative Resources for Public DNS Pinging > > On 08Feb22, Mike Hammett allegedly wrote: > > > Some people need a clue by four and I'm looking to build my collection of > > them. > > > "Google services, including Google Public DNS, are not designed as ICMP > > network testing services" > > Hard to disagree with "their network, their rules", but we're talking about > an entrenched, > pervasive, Internet-wide behaviorial issue. > > My guess is that making ping/ICMP less reliable to the extent that it becomes > unusable > wont change fundamental behavior. Rather, it'll make said "pingers" reach for > another tool > that does more or less the same thing with more or less as little extra > effort as possible > on their part. > > And what might such an alternate tool do? My guess is one which SYN/ACKs > various popular > TCP ports (say 22, 25, 80, 443) and maybe sends a well-formed UDP packet to a > few popular > DNS ports (say 53 and 119). Let's call this command "nmap -sn" with a few > tweaks, shall > we? > > After all, it's no big deal to the pinger if their reachability command now > exchanges > 10-12 packets with resource intensive destination ports instead of a couple > of packets to > lightweight destinations. I'll bet most pingers will neither know nor care, > especially if > their next-gen ping works more consistently than the old one. > > So. Question. Will making ping/ICMP mostly useless for home-gamers and lazy > network admins > change internet behaviour for the better? Or will it have unintended > consequences such as > an evolutionary adaptation by the tools resulting in yet more unwanted > traffic which is > even harder to eliminate? > > > Mark. >