Talk:Traceroute

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Software / Computing   
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.
 
WikiProject Computing  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

traceroute.org[edit]

traceroute.org isn't updated for a lot of years, half of links are dead and his maintainer takes care of it ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.163.173.59 (talk) 23:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The information on this page is a bit mixed up. It might take some work to sort out all the small discrepancies here. Kim Bruning 07:55, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
As to images,anyone up for an xtraceroute screenshot? For some reason my xtraceroute database sucks. I wonder if anyone has a nicer one to make a decent image with ;-) Kim Bruning 12:41, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Matt's Trace Route[edit]

There is an article on mtr, "Matt's Trace Route," which should be merged into the traceroute article as a new section unless there's some compelling reason to keep the information in two unsynchronized places. (Or unless, of course, "Matt's Trace Route" turns out to be unencyclopedic; but apparently a bunch of Linux sysadmins use it, so I reserve judgment on that point.) --Quuxplusone 05:10, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

--Dissagree-- No don't do that, tracrt and mtr are completly different tools (they share some similarities in functionality) just reference each of them on both pages
--Disagree-- I concur with the above editor.Shouta 09:54, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
--Disagree-- Functionality is different, btw as one of those Linux sysadmins I recomend this tool as a replacement to tregular traceroute. Htaccess 13:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
--Agree-- The functionality is the same, MTR just adds another element (ping) after the initial traceroute. Note MTR often results in poor data, since it probes based on data going "to" the router (slow path / control-plane data which is usually heavily rate limited and cpu processed), not data going "through" the router. Take any such data with a grain of salt, or be prepared to be confused. Humble226 08:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
--Disagree-- traceroute is a traditional Unix command, there are dozens of "improved" versions out there, let's not mention them all in the article. Jaho 04:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

correct title[edit]

Why should the first letter not be capitalized if the name of the program is not traceroute? Mace 11:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Because Unix-like operating systems distinguish between upper and lower case in filenames. Typing "Traceroute" in stead of "traceroute" results in a "command not found" error. Jaho 04:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Security concerns[edit]

For these reasons, while traceroute was widely used during the early days of Internet, by the 1990s many Internet sites have blocked traceroute requests

This is somewhat deceptive, as there's no way to directly block traceroute requests, since traceroute just uses one of the standard network protocols (usually UDP, ICMP, or TCP). UDP-based traceroutes merely rely on the the hops and destination hosts sending ICMP_TIME_EXCEEDED and ICMP_PORT_UNREACHABLE, respectively. Standard UNIX traceroute also implements ICMP-based traceroute which uses ICMP ECHO instead of UDP. As mentioned in the article, some traceroutes use TCP.

The quoted text above oversimplifies what would be required to "block" traceroute requests (if it's even really feasible) and is thus deceptive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramorum (talkcontribs) 23:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I've now flagged "many Internet sites have blocked traceroute requests" as dubious. As stated above, there is no direct way to block traceroute requests. Perhaps the article writer means that many sites/isp's block ICMP/UDP. But even then, if a site does not respond to the ICMP or UDP packets involved, it is still possible to trace the route up to the node that blocks those packets. Also the article talks about round trip time here, but it is hop count that traceroute relies on, not round trip time, wich suggests to me that the article writer confuses traceroute and ping. The security concerns section needs at least clarification. Or perhaps it is better removed, since internet security is a general concern, and not specifically related to traceroute. Jaho (talk) 14:43, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
In 2003 a worm did quite a lot of damage and it caused infected computers to send zillions of ICMP packets. Many ISPs configured routers to block all ICMP packets that had the length used by the worm. MS Windows systems use ICMP packets for tracert which happened to be the same length, and for a couple of months it was not possible to tracert. Perhaps whoever wrote the section in question had that experience, or something like it, in mind. I'm not sure how it's done, but it is true that many private networks block incoming traceroute in practice (yes, I know that there is no such thing as a "traceroute" packet, so they are blocking more than traceroute). Johnuniq (talk) 23:04, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Image necessary?[edit]

While graphical illustrations are great, I think the screenshot of a terminal emulator running traceroute is superflous, as it's output is ASCII text, which is better conveyed as preformatted text. —SvartMan (talk) 17:50, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

UDP vs ICMP[edit]

Since the original implementation by Van Jacobson used UDP and virtually all implementations, except for Windows, use UDP by default, should we not put emphasis on UDP rather than ICMP operation. Possibly starting off with stating that UDP is the more common mode measured by numbers of implementation while ICMP, having backing by the most widely deployed OS (Windows), would probably be more commonly seen? If noone objects, I would like to rewrite the article accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kll (talkcontribs) 10:08, 10 June 2011 (UTC)