• Open Menu Close Menu
  • Apple
  • Shopping Bag
  • Apple
  • Mac
  • iPad
  • iPhone
  • Watch
  • TV
  • Music
  • Support
  • Search apple.com
  • Shopping Bag

Lists

Open Menu Close Menu
  • Terms and Conditions
  • Lists hosted on this site
  • Email the Postmaster
  • Tips for posting to public mailing lists
Re: What is the point of a host-reachability test that doesn't test the reachability of the host?
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: What is the point of a host-reachability test that doesn't test the reachability of the host?


  • Subject: Re: What is the point of a host-reachability test that doesn't test the reachability of the host?
  • From: Conrad Shultz <email@hidden>
  • Date: Wed, 01 Jun 2011 17:52:47 -0700

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 6/1/11 5:34 PM, G S wrote:
> But since this test doesn't actually check the routes to these
> hosts, how would it be able to provide meaningful results even in
> these cases?

Note: I am _not_ an SCNetworkReachability guru, so take this all with a
grain of salt.

How do you know that the routes aren't tested?  Quoting from your first
message:

"A remote host is considered reachable when a data packet, sent by an
application into the network stack, can leave the local device."

If the kernel cannot route the packet, this would be interpreted by any
sane implementation as "cannot leave the local device."

A kernel routing table lookup would cover VPN availability issues, LANs
with no gateway (or otherwise defined default route), etc.

> I figured the specific-host test pinged the host.

I can't imagine it would.  Ping would lead to many, many false negatives
regarding host availability.  A great many sites block ICMP echo
requests (I just tried "ping apple.com" for example - and get no response).

Since the OS has no way of knowing what particular port/service is of
interest, your only good option is to try to connect to the service of
interest and handle failure appropriately.

(Of course, even if you seemingly can't connect by this approach, it is
fundamentally unknowable whether the receiving host actually got your
test message: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Generals'_Problem)

- --
Conrad Shultz

Synthetiq Solutions
www.synthetiqsolutions.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iD8DBQFN5t7faOlrz5+0JdURAiXSAJ92OKchqiDg5NFuQ7Z/GF9aYr18JwCfRCKE
WDaiNrv5I/vDSAvQsxmQU40=
=wgKX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________

Cocoa-dev mailing list (email@hidden)

Please do not post admin requests or moderator comments to the list.
Contact the moderators at cocoa-dev-admins(at)lists.apple.com

Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:

This email sent to email@hidden

  • Follow-Ups:
    • Re: What is the point of a host-reachability test that doesn't test the reachability of the host?
      • From: John Joyce <email@hidden>
References: 
 >What is the point of a host-reachability test that doesn't test the reachability of the host? (From: G S <email@hidden>)
 >Re: What is the point of a host-reachability test that doesn't test the reachability of the host? (From: Greg Parker <email@hidden>)
 >Re: What is the point of a host-reachability test that doesn't test the reachability of the host? (From: G S <email@hidden>)

  • Prev by Date: Re: What is the point of a host-reachability test that doesn't test the reachability of the host?
  • Next by Date: Re: What is the point of a host-reachability test that doesn't test the reachability of the host?
  • Previous by thread: Re: What is the point of a host-reachability test that doesn't test the reachability of the host?
  • Next by thread: Re: What is the point of a host-reachability test that doesn't test the reachability of the host?
  • Index(es):
    • Date
    • Thread