Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-lcc!ames!sgi!vjs
From: vjs@rhyolite.SGI.COM (Vernon Schryver)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: ICMP's & IP src addrs
Summary: radioactive copper
Message-ID: <22185@sgi.SGI.COM>
Date: 17 Sep 88 02:11:11 GMT
References: <23634@hi.unm.edu> <8809151450.AA23101@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> <24915@bu-cs.BU.EDU>
Sender: daemon@sgi.SGI.COM
Distribution: na
Organization: Silicon Graphics Inc, Mountain View, CA
Lines: 22

In article <24915@bu-cs.BU.EDU>, kwe@bu-cs.BU.EDU (kwe@bu-it.bu.edu (Kent W. England)) writes:
> 	No, no, no.  ICMP messages are special, because they are error
> messages.  They must be treated carefully and conservatively.

That means my favorite diagnostic tool and stress test will go away:
`ping -f <broadcast>', where 'ping' takes '-f' as 'flood the target at
100 packets/sec.'  (100 p/s * >100 hosts = ?)  Believe it or not, this
can be quite useful for constructive purposes.  Tho it will break my
heart, this tool should go to the same retirement home as the old
Atoms-for-Piece plan for digging a new Panama canal.

The usefulness of the relatively innocuous 'ping <broadcast>' to see
what's there can be duplicated with a small program which sends to all
possible host addresses (paying attention to netmask).  Modern machines
can generate at least a couple hundred packets/sec from user code.  (At
least our's and our competator's are much better than that. :-)  Thus
in any situation where you don't expect too many responses for the test
to social acceptible, it would take the new program only seconds to do
the same thing.

Vernon Schryver
Silicon Graphics
vjs@sgi.com