Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!ll-xn!mit-eddie!killer!pollux!ti-csl!pf@csc.ti.com
From: pf@csc.ti.com (Paul Fuqua)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: Dumb question:  ping w/o icmp support?
Message-ID: <61558@ti-csl.CSNET>
Date: 21 Oct 88 17:36:41 GMT
References: <375@eagle_snax.UUCP>
Sender: news@ti-csl.CSNET
Organization: TI Computer Science Center, Dallas
Lines: 29


    Date: Thursday, October 20, 1988  6:28am (CDT)
    From: geoff at eagle_snax.UUCP ( R.H. coast near the top)
    Subject: Re: Dumb question:  ping w/o icmp support?
    Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
    
    In article <527@mks.UUCP: egisin@watmath.waterloo.edu (Eric Gisin) writes:
    :In article <440@gonzo.UUCP:, daveb@gonzo.UUCP (Dave Brower) writes:
    :: A number of the machines I use support only the tcp and udp protocols. 
    
    You mean they're in violation of the RFC's? :-( ICMP is an integral
    part of IP, and  it's got to be in there. Presumably you mean there's
    no user-accessible interface to ICMP services.
    
We have a VMS machine running a locally-hacked version of the CMU TCP/IP
package, and it doesn't respond to ICMP echoes, although it does FTP
just fine (albeit slowly).  Violation or not, it's all we have and
better than Decnet (for our purposes).

    :: I'd really like to be able to ping from them.  Is there any hope, short
    :: of harrassing the vendors?

There are also UDP and TCP echoes, you might try them.

                              pf

Paul Fuqua
Texas Instruments Computer Science Center, Dallas, Texas
CSNet:  pf@csc.ti.com (ARPA too, sometimes)
UUCP:   {smu, texsun, cs.utexas.edu, im4u, rice}!ti-csl!pf