> "most" commands do not. for example,
>
> cpu -h /net.alt/tcp!ladd.quanstro.net
>
it turns out i had a bit of extra time since it's too icy to leave the
house. :-(
anyway, here are all the programs that take -x mntpt, as determined by
the man pages.
vnc(1) vncs
httpfil
> erik quanstrom once said:
> > unfortunately, the simlification removes the code that solves an important
> > use case. it's important to be able to specify the protocol or network
> > stack,
> > such as in
> >
> > ip/ping /net.alt/icmp!someaddress
>
> Most commands use an -x option and s
erik quanstrom once said:
> unfortunately, the simlification removes the code that solves an important
> use case. it's important to be able to specify the protocol or network stack,
> such as in
>
> ip/ping /net.alt/icmp!someaddress
Most commands use an -x option and setnetmtpt(2) to arr
unfortunately, the simlification removes the code that solves an important
use case. it's important to be able to specify the protocol or network stack,
such as in
ip/ping /net.alt/icmp!someaddress
the diff is here and i'll be working on a patch.
the basic idea is to translate only the
On Sun Jan 3 13:42:21 PST 2016, 23h...@gmail.com wrote:
> your ipv4 "embedding" doesn't need to be part of the ping tool. it's
> not commonly used anyway.
i think the attribution here is false. i read the man page for that
information.
in any event, ping as patched is wrong. addresses like ic
perhaps i misunderstand. i'm not against adding zeros at the front.
your ipv4 "embedding" doesn't need to be part of the ping tool. it's
not commonly used anyway.
allowing the ping tool to do dns lookups on the other hand are a
common convenience.
> i spent some time thinking about this problem.
>
> the purpose of -6 is to force icmpv6. (one can use a v4 address
> with icmpv6, that works due to ipv4 embedding.) this is not the same as
> controlling name lookup. since there are better more flexible tools
> for doing that by hand. the res
On Sun Jan 3 12:00:39 PST 2016, 23h...@gmail.com wrote:
> -4 and -6 should error when used with an ip of the wrong type. when
> used with domains correct behavior should be trivial and if there's no
> dns response for A or it should error once again.
i spent some time thinking about this pro
-4 and -6 should error when used with an ip of the wrong type. when
used with domains correct behavior should be trivial and if there's no
dns response for A or it should error once again.
unfortunately, there is some imprecision when mixing -4 and -6 with names,
and i don't have a tidy solution.
also, the man page claims that the biggest an icmp packet could possibly be is
8192 bytes, which
is incorrect. icmp is fragmented like any other ip packet, so the maximum
payload is 64k.
on reading the man page, i found a small flaw in the implementation. according
to
the man page, -6 forces is of icmp6, even if the address is icmp4. i changed
ping to
do that.as a result, i added a -4 flag which forces the ping to use icmp4.
obviously, there is no
native 6-in-4, so this is an
> I would display the IP address once only, rather on every line; as it
> is a common factor.
It's common only until it isn't. If an intermediate router doesn't
like your packet it might choose to respond, in which case your
intended target doesn't get to. At least that's why the Unix version
of
hello,
I did nothing about original ping options, so they should work as they have
been.
I am afraid I have removed too much.
the new ping is here. test, please.
ping.c
Description: Binary data
> 2015/12/31 7:43、Kenny Lasse Hoff Levinsen のメール:
>
> It is not a common factor if you ping br
On Wed, 30 Dec 2015 23:36:22 GMT "Steve Simon" wrote:
> > It is not a common factor if you ping broadcast.
>
> Yep, fair point.
If you're pinging plan9 machines, printing source address is
not useful as they sebd ping replies with source = broadcast
ip address. You have to look at the source et
> It is not a common factor if you ping broadcast.
Yep, fair point.
I admit I have never done a ping broadcast.
I did hear a story of somone who (in the early days of ethernet)
built a ping broadcast packet, with the source address of the broadcast address.
This resulted in the mother of all pa
It is not a common factor if you ping broadcast. That is, the local address is
common, the remote is not.
joushou
> On 30 Dec 2015, at 20:05, Steve Simon wrote:
>
> I would display the IP address once only, rather on every line; as it is a
> common factor.
>
> -Steve
>
>
>> On 30 Dec 2015,
I would display the IP address once only, rather on every line; as it is a
common factor.
-Steve
> On 30 Dec 2015, at 15:26, Kurt H Maier wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 03:05:33PM +, Steve Simon wrote:
>> If I where redesigning ping I wouldn't repeat any info that is common on
>> ea
On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 03:05:33PM +, Steve Simon wrote:
> If I where redesigning ping I wouldn't repeat any info that is common on each
> line - I.e. ip addresses or the column titles: rtt, ave etc.
>
> consider plan9's ps(1) which has no column titles. they are described in the
> man page
If I where redesigning ping I wouldn't repeat any info that is common on each
line - I.e. ip addresses or the column titles: rtt, ave etc.
consider plan9's ps(1) which has no column titles. they are described in the
man page and are obvious from the context once you have read the man page once.
On 30 December 2015 at 12:48, arisawa wrote:
> code is simplified.
It works better, but it's smaller? With luck, you might start a trend!
hello,
is the following output of ping reasonable enough?
io% 6.ping -an3 hebe
sending 3 64 byte messages 1000 ms apart to icmp!192.168.0.6!1
192.168.0.5 -> 192.168.0.6
0: 192.168.0.6 -> 192.168.0.5 rtt 88 µs, avg rtt 88 µs, ttl = 255
1: 192.168.0.6 -> 192.168.0.5 rtt 83 µs, avg rtt 85 µ
arisawa once said:
> is this a feature or a bug?
It looks like a bug to me. The code in
/sys/src/cmd/ip/ping.c:/^isv4name
is too clever for it's own good.
Anthony
hello 9fans,
I have once posted the message below to 9front mailing list.
however looking the origin of the problem, now I think better place is 9fans.
== message posted to 9front mailing list ==
I am feeling weird that ip/ping -6 does not ping to ipv6 address with
/lib/ndb/local.
# sys=
24 matches
Mail list logo