11–20 of 116 posts
It always amazes me in-depth HN gets on pretty much any subject, yet the most basic cursory network page gets massive response Is there simply a total lack of understanding of how networks work in the tech community?
On the other hand traceroute isn’t real[0] 0: https://gekk.info/articles/traceroute.htm
This is said like it is a bad thing…
It always amazes me in-depth HN gets on pretty much any subject, yet the most basic cursory network page gets massive response Is there simply a total lack of understanding of how networks work in the tech community?
seems like clickbait traceroute uses udp to a high-port for discovery, not icmp-echo.
Windows tracert uses ICMP Source: https://support.microsoft.com/en-gb/topic/how-to-use-tracert... > The TRACERT diagnostic utility determines the route to a destination by sending Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMP) echo packets to the destination
anyways, the type of packet does not really matter.
It always amazes me in-depth HN gets on pretty much any subject, yet the most basic cursory network page gets massive response Is there simply a total lack of understanding of how networks work in the tech community?
I'm often tasked with explaining technical concepts to people with entry-level knowledge so simple, clear documents like this are very helpful resources.
It always amazes me in-depth HN gets on pretty much any subject, yet the most basic cursory network page gets massive response Is there simply a total lack of understanding of how networks work in the tech community?
Why would it be any different if you're developing a CRUD application with a bunch of SREs / datacenter engineers on the line? They are very good at abstracting networking away from software engineers.
If the destination machine has disabled ping, what response is recieved?
seems like clickbait traceroute uses udp to a high-port for discovery, not icmp-echo.
Even the network diagram at the beginning is not very good. Can you create network architectures where 10.0.0.1 and 10.0.0.2 are not layer 2 adjacent? Yes, but they’re fairly complex and would imply that a lot of other necessary information is missing from the diagram. And should you use such an architecture as an example to explain traceroute? Absolutely not. It’s hard to imagine someone with even a CCNA level understanding of networking coming up with this.