Re: [Sheflug] (no subject)

[Denis Nikitin <dnn [at] xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, 2003-10-01 at 00:31, Chris J wrote:
[snip]
> 
> I'm a little confused; Andy - by tracepath do you mean traceroute? 
> Either way, traceroute on UNIX has always used UDP, so won't be affected
> by ICMP blocking. It is stopped by lots of firewalls though, which can 
> make it rather awkward. There is however a TCP traceroute (called 
> tcptraceroute, funnily enough), which gets round this by tracing to a 
> particular TCP port. Handy then as you can trace through firewalls to 
> the final destination :)
> 
> tracert on Win32 however is ICMP based. Which can be worse than the UDP 
> traceroute, especially in the current climate of worms.
> 
> Chris...
Isn't like traceroute and like are based on using ICMP anyway?
It's true you can say they use UDP, but at the end it's ICMP responds
what counts in stats!
I am ended more confused then I started - not a good sign :)
BT "filtering" host is 217.32.137.201 - is a demon's gate. Trace path
between my router and first gate isn't seems to be an interesting
exercise. 
Did I miss something obvious and trying to find a black cat in a black
room?
Cheers,
Dennis.   


___________________________________________________________________

Sheffield Linux User's Group -
http://www.sheflug.co.uk/mailfaq.html

  GNU the choice of a complete generation.