In reply to a post by Oliver341:

In reply to a post by BatBoy:

That's not what it says here http://www.netheaven.com/pmtu.html

From that page: "notifications arrive as ICMP (Internet Control Message Protocol) packets known as "fragmentation needed" ICMPs (ICMP type 3, subtype 4)".

ICMP Echo is ICMP type 0 and 8, Reply and Request, completely separate to ICMP type 3 used for Path MTU Discovery.

From that page

Administrators who want to block all ICMPs should disable path MTU discovery on their computers, especially on their servers. It makes no sense to ask for ICMP notifications and then refuse to accept them. In addition, doing so opens the server to a special type of distributed denial of service attack based on resource exhaustion from a large number of fully-open connections.

In reply to a post by BatBoy:

From that page

Administrators who want to block all ICMPs should disable path MTU discovery on their computers, especially on their servers. It makes no sense to ask for ICMP notifications and then refuse to accept them. In addition, doing so opens the server to a special type of distributed denial of service attack based on resource exhaustion from a large number of fully-open connections.

Yes, but disabling ping replies on routers does not disable all type of ICMP, just the ones dealing with ICMP Echo.

In reply to a post by Oliver341:

Yes, but disabling ping replies on routers does not disable all type of ICMP, just the ones dealing with ICMP Echo.

The OP wants to disable all type of ICMP.

In reply to a post by BatBoy:

The OP wants to disable all type of ICMP.

If you say so, BatBoy.

He wants to be invisible on the net to stop script kiddies hacking his computer

In reply to a post by Oliver341:

Yes, but disabling ping replies on routers does not disable all type of ICMP, just the ones dealing with ICMP Echo.

That's what you'd hope. Without actually testing, I've seen some routers (remotely, so not sure what they were) that ignored ALL ICMP when the owner told me they'd "blocked ping". Including all the useful ones :-/

I suppose to test this you could run 1 week with pings on and 1 week off, and then see how many intrusions from china you get in the logs.

BTW. syslog is borked on the sky d-link and probably the sagem, plus I already know what the results will be

Battyboy can test this, he likes intrusions

Edited by deleted (Fri 17-Jun-11 21:45:09)

Everything here seems a lot more settled with pings enabled and a static ip. It just works, but I'm on BE. I moved from Sky to BE due to problems with loss of routing.

In reply to a post by Tox_Laximus:

BTW. syslog is borked on the sky d-link and probably the sagem, plus I already know what the results will be

No, you have an untested hypothesis.

I just suggested you try it. You've argued you don't want it. Its no skin off my nose at all, it doesn't affect me in the slightest. End of topic.

Edited by jchamier (Sat 18-Jun-11 00:25:24)

Theres one born every minute, so why do they have to post in my thread?