I'd swear I read a note somewhere from someone either at HP or with Interex
(however all efforts to find it have so far failed) that proposed adding
several products to the shared source initiative. One was ping. The reason I
remember it is I thought at the time it would be a perfect candidate because
it is relatively small and is probably not dependent on any other software.
Also, I too have felt for a long time that ping.net.sys was inadequate.
While capabilities have not been an issue with me, certainly it's inability
to ping by name makes it mostly useless. And nettool's ping-by-name seems to
take an inordinately long time to resolve the name.

But the real issue here is that while I would like to see a better
ping.net.sys, I don't want CSY using any precious engineering time enhancing
it. Does anyone know enough about how ping works to determine if a shared
source version is feasible?

John Burke
[log in to unmask]

-----Original Message-----
From: HP-3000 Systems Discussion [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On
Behalf Of Donna Garverick
Sent: Monday, May 15, 2000 9:34 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: ping


"Simonsen, Larry" wrote:

> but this also requires NA capability.  why can not a less powered user
ping
> another machine?

perhaps someone from hp would comment about why ping requires 'na'
capability?
from my perspective it's a 'safe' command -- all by itself.  while having
access restricted for nettool is appropriate, is it also necessary for
ping?                 - d

--
Donna Garverick     Sr. System Programmer
925-210-6631        [log in to unmask]

>>>MY opinions, not Longs Drug Stores'<<<