[43901] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Pinging Yahoo! (WAS: Getting hacked by Digital Isle?)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Patrick W. Gilmore)
Sat Oct 27 13:55:05 2001
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20011027134111.047fee40@127.0.0.1>
Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2001 13:53:31 -0400
To: nanog@merit.edu, mike harrison <meuon@highertech.net>
From: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick@ianai.net>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10110262204090.32617-100000@home.highertech.
net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
At 10:09 PM 10/26/2001 -0400, mike harrison wrote:
>Now, here's a real issue, many of us probably have similiar systems
>that ping upstream connections and page/alert/log when there are
>problems. My 'watcher' could also grab a web page (checking port 80)
>or do other tests, but I have always assumed that the ping was the least
>amount of traffic easily and reliably sent to check connectivity.
>
>Whats the best way to monitor upstream connectivity for this purpose?
Personally, I do not see anything wrong with pinging your upstream. You
PAY them, they will take any and all traffic you send them (unless
otherwise stated in something like an AUP). Ping away.
Of course, that leaves the question as to whether your upstream can get to
the rest of the world....
--
TTFN,
patrick
