1996-02-19 - Re: PING packets illegal?

Header Data

From: “Perry E. Metzger” <perry@piermont.com>
To: Adam Shostack <adam@lighthouse.homeport.org>
Message Hash: ae2fc5002eb912f57e7a209fdc3a781876224b3fb0cf08fde20f5b7be6f5f1f5
Message ID: <199602191922.OAA07064@jekyll.piermont.com>
Reply To: <199602181819.NAA10431@homeport.org>
UTC Datetime: 1996-02-19 20:42:33 UTC
Raw Date: Tue, 20 Feb 1996 04:42:33 +0800

Raw message

From: "Perry E. Metzger" <perry@piermont.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 1996 04:42:33 +0800
To: Adam Shostack <adam@lighthouse.homeport.org>
Subject: Re: PING packets illegal?
In-Reply-To: <199602181819.NAA10431@homeport.org>
Message-ID: <199602191922.OAA07064@jekyll.piermont.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



Adam Shostack writes:
> | If you want to really abuse the protocols, 53 bytes probably fits into the
> | 64 you can send in a ping, so you could implement ATM-over-ICMP :-)
> 
> Err, you can put up to 1500 bytes into an ICMP echo request, if its
> properly implemented.

IP datagrams will store up to 64k (including headers). 1500 bytes is
just a common MTU, but with fragmentation that needn't be a limit.

.pm

Thread

• Return to February 1996

• Return to “Adam Shostack <adam@lighthouse.homeport.org>”
• Return to “Bill Stewart <stewarts@ix.netcom.com>”

• Return to ““Perry E. Metzger” <perry@piermont.com>”

• 1996-02-18 (Mon, 19 Feb 1996 02:14:38 +0800) - Re: PING packets illegal? - Bill Stewart <stewarts@ix.netcom.com>
  • 1996-02-18 (Mon, 19 Feb 1996 02:46:05 +0800) - Re: PING packets illegal? - Adam Shostack <adam@lighthouse.homeport.org>
    • 1996-02-19 (Tue, 20 Feb 1996 04:42:33 +0800) - Re: PING packets illegal? - “Perry E. Metzger” <perry@piermont.com>