Jump to content

Talk:Ping (networking utility)/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Article Naming

Why is it called "ping" and not "Ping"? (Though the Talk page seems to be fine.) --121.54.96.3 (talk) 14:24, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I see no reason why it should not be "Ping".  Done --Hm2k (talk) 12:26, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
I presume that it's because the command is explicitly uncapitalized. See traceroute, echo, cat, and all these. Of course, the topic could be taken as the general practice of testing host responsiveness, but then the title would be ICMP Ping or Pinging. --Sneftel (talk) 14:31, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
The article appears to be discussing both the terminology "ping" as well as the command. I see no reason why the title should explicitly match the linux command name. --Hm2k (talk) 15:28, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
The reason would be consistency with other utilities which are in a similar situation, such as traceroute. --Sneftel (talk) 12:20, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
This is Wikipedia, an encyclopaedia, not a Linux manual. Terminology well exceeds the naming of a command. --Hm2k (talk) 17:18, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Does it? The utility came first, of course. Other things which use the terminology do so in reference to the utility, not in reference to the underlying procedure the utility makes use of. The page is talking about the utility, which is "ping" (or "ping", "ping", "PING", or "ping", depending on the OS); the general procedure, which is "Pinging" (WP loves its gerunds); or the specific thing which is sent in that procedure, which is "ICMP Echo Request". None of those is "Ping".
In any case, I think we're spinning our wheels a little, and it's not that important an issue. How 'bout we flag it for WP:3O and abide by J. Random Wikipedian's opinion? --Sneftel (talk) 18:28, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Sure, 3O is a good idea. Although I do respect your level headed response and can deduce that we can resolve this between ourselves. Perhaps sticking to the facts is the best course of action. My point is that the term "Ping" exceeds the original linux command and that Wikipedia should reflect this (weak example being ping.fm). I think that's a fair conclusion to make. --Hm2k (talk) 19:28, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
I vote to retain the lowercase "ping" name since the RFC predates most every other use (the RFC documenting it is from 1981, ten years before Linux even existed). The article is about the program (and ICMP packets), as summarized by the lead paragraph:
 Ping is a computer network administration utility [....]
All of the modern uses are derived from this historical usage. -- Autopilot (talk) 22:10, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
You seem to be suggesting that legacy usage over-rules current usage. I think you'll find that the term "Ping" is more prevalent than "ping" and closer to "standard english", thus that should be used. --Hm2k (talk) 22:46, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
It isn't really legacy usage: the article is entirely about the command, which has been named ping for decades, and the ICMP packets that it generates. Additionally, as sneftel pointed out, other Unix commands that have entered the lexicon have retained their lowercase names on wikipedia. -- Autopilot (talk) 22:57, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I think Hm2k makes a good point that the term has become somewhat bifurcated. I note that Ping (video gaming) exists, and that it looks like it wants to be a more general article. Would it make sense to split this page into a utility-focused article named ping or ping (utility), and a process-focused article named Ping (networking) or Pinging (networking), which would subsume the content in that page and the ICMP stuff in this one? --Sneftel (talk) 02:00, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree, that's actually a good idea. The "ping" command or "software" should be split into an article titled ping_(software), while "Ping" can retain the details of the terminology. Meanwhile, to accommodate both, it should probably remain as "Ping". --Hm2k (talk) 08:41, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

PING...PONG

I wonder if it would be approriate to include a section discussing IRC's PING/PONG routine/joke. ProfessorTom (talk) 02:58, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, if it's a routine, which I think it is, rather than a joke. It should go under Other Types of Pinging. Mcavic (talk) 05:02, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Server denying ping due to packet size?

The most prominent graphic on this page is a set of 1472 and 1473 byte pings to www.google.com, claiming the SERVER is denying them due to the packet size.

In fact, 1472 is the maximum size that fits within a standard 1500 byte MTU packet, including the ICMP and IP headers. (20 bytes of IP header, 8 bytes of ICMP header.) There are many possible reasons why this is being denied, but most likely ICMP fragments are being blocked somewhere, preventing any fragmented replies.

I am removing this graphic because it is completely incorrect in claiming that the server is denying the request due to size. I will attempt to replace it with one showing a generic successful ping to www.google.com. 71.57.48.93 (talk) 09:30, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Completely correct. (I'm embarrassed I didn't realize this myself.) Thanks, CWC 11:41, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Sharing Music

With Ping you can share music and suggest music to your friends and family. Also it is made by Apple Inc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oscwatkins (talk • contribs) 17:00, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

The Apple Ping service is not related to this Ping, except by name. As listed on the disambiguation page, there is a separate page for the Apple service. Lantrix //Talk//Contrib// 11:26, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Ping is a measure of time?

I looked up the article because I wanted to find out if the ping is latency in milliseconds. I couldn't find anything about time in the article. Maybe someone who knows can write it in somewhere? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.54.125 (talk) 09:04, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Past Tense

Is the technical past tense of the word "ping" "pinged" or "pung"? I searched the article and could not find the answer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.233.207.225 (talk) 18:09, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

The past tense is "pinged." I cannot give you a "real" reference, but having worked in the industry for many years, the past tense is always stated as "pinged." 71.57.48.93 (talk) 09:33, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
you know what? I think I've heard "pung" used, and when it is used, it refers to having pinged many routers. I pinged each machine in the lab. and since some didn't respond when I pung them all, I walked over there and rebooted them. I did this while singing. In olden times router booters sang the song of pinging, how many router booters have sung about the routers they have pung? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.70.67.226 (talk) 19:42, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Requested Move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved per request. Support was a bit tepid, but there really is no evidence that the networking utility meets the requirements of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Favonian (talk) 21:05, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

– There are many uses of "ping" and someone might be looking for a particular one, so this move is necessary. TheChampionMan1234 (talk) 02:18, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Spelling of PING acronym

Ref the recent rollback (WP:AGF) that I did. It's not a matter of spelling Grouper vs Groper, please read the reference. It's spelt as the author in the reference spells it. Lantrix //Talk//Contrib// 05:44, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

The reference spells it groper, not grouper. Kbrose (talk) 06:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC) ::Ok, I see where it is spelled grouper by the author ping, but that is obviously a misspelling, nobody ever called it that--what sense would that make?-- but 'groper' as also stated in the same page. Kbrose (talk) 06:20, 8 September 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict)
I dont want a RV war :-) as I'm reading it different. Go to the article linked in Reference 1, and in the 8th Paragraph of the document written by mike (not the comments from other people) I'll copy/paste, with only the spelling in question emphasised:
From my point of view PING is not an acronym standing for Packet InterNet Grouper, it's a sonar analogy. However, I've heard second-hand that Dave Mills offered this expansion of the name, so perhaps we're both right. Sheesh, and I thought the government was bad about expanding acronyms! :-)
What reference are you referring to with the spelling Groper, the book in reference 2? Lantrix //Talk//Contrib// 06:17, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
In my IT circles, I'd heard it called "Packet InterNet Grope", so who's to say what version is correct? It's a hard call. Typing groper and after the O, ones finger is moving towards the P, not away from it, and the U isn't directly next to the O or the P :-). So we should either spell it as the original author of the reference document did, mistake or not since wikipedia is not about speculation, or we should remove the "Note" and just leave in the exact quote of the reference text the citation/reference. Lantrix //Talk//Contrib// 06:51, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Whether it's 'grope' or 'groper' is rather irrelevant, as it is at least the same meaning, the same base verb. But the common misinterpretation was 'groper', copied from the 'dig' origin. It's actually completely irrelevant just what the author dispelled, since he explicitly stated the true origin of the term. Thereby he discredited ANY other interpretation. Frankly, I don't believe this should even be mentioned. We should simply specify what the author intended with the name and provide a reference to that effect. There is no reason to pick out any one particular aberration of misconception and give it prominence. Kbrose (talk) 15:34, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
So we actually agree - It need not be mentioned, but it's useful to leave the reference and the citation with it's quote. I've removed the note. Lantrix //Talk//Contrib// 04:40, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. I find false etymologies really annoying, so I'd like to debunk this one, but as briefly as possible. So I've just changed the 1st para of the "History" section to this:

The ping utility was created by Mike Muuss in December 1983 as a tool to troubleshoot problems in an IP network. "Ping" is not, as is sometimes said, an acronym for "Packet InterNet Groper"; it is in fact named after the sound pulses of active sonar, which also involves sending a signal and measuring the time until any echo is received.

(BTW, this is 4 words shorter than the previous version of the para, which did not mention the acronym.) This version handles the which-acronym-to-debunk problem by only mentioning one, qualified by "sometimes".

Another approach is not not specify any acronym, like this:

The ping utility was created by Mike Muuss in December 1983 as a tool to troubleshoot problems in an IP network. "Ping" is sometimes said to be an acronym but the name is in fact taken from sonar terminology — like active sonar, ping sends a signal and measures the time until any echo is received.

(This is 6 words shorter than the version I put in the article.)

If other editors would rather not mention the acronym at all, I'll accept that. But I really dislike false etymologies, so I thought I'd make an effort to combat this one via this article. What do other contributors think? CWC 18:27, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing false about stating the correct origin of the name, while providing a source. What is false is giving the impression that the interpretation of ping as an acronym is credible or common-place, it isn't even intuitive such that a novice reader would suspect another origin. No text book, encyclopedia, etc. prominently mentions misconceptions that are far-fetched next to the correct presentation to dispel them. Why you would reintroduce this language into the article and call for another opinion after the above discussion is puzzling. Kbrose (talk) 19:35, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Well, I was gently disagreeing with the preceding discussion. My concern comes from my personal dislike of false etymologies and having encountered the wrong explanation of the name once too often. As it happens, there are quite a few Wikipedia articles that debunk common false etymologies (eg., brass monkey (colloquial expression) — see false etymology for lots more). But none of this is all that important, and I won't re-insert any mention of the false acronym. OTOH, I have just shortened the explanation of the analogy with active sonar. Cheers, CWC 03:14, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
No problem with that, it was not exactly elegant. Kbrose (talk) 03:58, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
I like that as well. Good call, and thanks for the extensive discussion. Lantrix //Talk//Contrib// 07:52, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't follow the history section at all. The verb PING (as in to do PING) is way older than the BSD 4.2a utility (as in ping(8)). The listing of the DCN user process PING, which predates BSD ping by at least 1/2 a decade, starts with:
; P i n g - packet inter net groper
;
; This program is an internet pinger and sounder. it zings packets
; To various unsuspecting gateways and hosts and collects statistics
; To embarass the implementers.

Why all the concern for the etymology of the half baked (it only does echo requests, no replies) BSD utility from 1984 while Multics and DCN boxen were doing PING back in 1980 and maybe even earlyer? 62.234.58.170 (talk) 23:45, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Having heard the word "ping" used conversationally by a reasonably nontechnical nurse, I was motivated to check if the word was, as I was taught, an acronym. I was very disappointed that I could not find an answer in Wikipedia. When I remembered to check the talk page I found this discussion which provided me with an unexpected answer. My thanks to those who documented this issue, and to those who fought to remove this information from the page: you are reducing the value of Wikipedia as a reliable source of knowledge.96.250.60.227 (talk) 02:01, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

ping is an acronym?

Mike Muuss wrote the program in December, 1983. From his home page: http://ftp.arl.army.mil/~mike/ping.html

"I named it after the sound that a sonar makes, inspired by the whole principle of echo-location."

and

"From my point of view PING is not an acronym standing for Packet InterNet Grouper, it's a sonar analogy."

_Many_ technical exams and such refer to ping as an acronym (Packet INternet Groper, so not even the most correct of them), rather than the actual correct meaning (like Sonar).

I really don't feel anyone has the right to change the meaning of the authors name for the application and I feel that the acronyms for the application should be viewed as an incorrect misconception rather than an acceptable definition. milliamp

This may be a case of creating a backronym. People desire the 'reason' for a name and sometimes make up answers. See the article on the computer language Perl for a more explicit example of a backronym. Shenme 18:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for including that quote from Muuss. I've got a technical manual from Cisco that refers to the acronym ( http://www.manualowl.com/m/Linksys/BEFCMU10/Manual/4735?page=24 ), but I now share your point of view on this.

Don't forget Muuss's next sentence: "From my point of view PING is not an acronym standing for Packet InterNet Grouper, it's a sonar analogy. However, I've heard second-hand that Dave Mills offered this expansion of the name, so perhaps we're both right." I feel that both definitions should be at least being included with the original authors meaning being the primary.

Yes, Even I think so, that both the acronyms should be included with their original authors. I did make a mistake of connecting "grouper" fish with australian coast. But apart from that "Packet Internet Grouper" should also be present here explaining which is what, and thus, clearing understanding of this knowledge for a lay student. Also supported by other sites: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_a_packet_internet_grouper?#slide=1
And there is even a Wikipedia page named "Packet Internet Grouper" which, when searched, redirects here. So, there should be a mention from where this terminology has emerged and why.. along with the original one.
Thanks..

--Aaniya B (talk) 15:08, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Hello there! Just as a note, having a redirect page pointing here doesn't mean anything by itself. We'd need some good references in order to conclude "ping" actually has something to do with Packet Internet Grouper. Actually, what would "Packet Internet Grouper" mean? Sorry, but to me, it's meaningless. — Dsimic (talk) 18:56, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Why does the section "Other types of pinging" exist?

There is an actual article for Ping_(video_gaming) and the disambiguation page is quite good in listing out all the different uses of ping. What's the rationale behind this section? – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 21:28, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, ... long-standing issue. Like this week, people kept adding other pings and those were collected in that section at one time. Really doesn't belong here. Kbrose (talk) 01:54, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
In that case, I will be WP:BOLD and remove it for now, while moving the mention of the MH370 incident to a "Notable uses of ping" section. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 04:45, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm concerned that the new section violates WP:TRIVIA but I will leave it there for now, since other editors seemed to have deemed the MH370 information worth keeping. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 04:56, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Well, I agree with your concern. The content of your new section could also be greatly debated whether it constitutes an analogy or not, or why it is that much different from the other case we had. From what I understand those pings are not just echo replies, but active signals from the aircraft. Kbrose (talk) 05:40, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
The line I'm basing the analogy on is this "A Ping is a quite common term for IT Networking. It refers to a utility used to test the reachability of a host on an IP network and measure the round-trip time (RTT) of the packets even if it is more frequently associated to the data messages themselves, or “pings”." Does that seem like a reasonable interpretation? – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 05:49, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
I think the article would be better off without that section. Other pings got added when the page title was simply 'ping', IIRC. Since it has been renamed with the disambiguation (networking utility), that should keep people from adding other pings, however, if we have a section, it's once again inviting to add more. Kbrose (talk) 05:50, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Addendum: the following paragraph is more explicit: "Similarly to what happens on a Local Area Network, satellites send pings (once a hour) to their receiving peers that respond to it thus signaling their network presence." – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 05:52, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
In this case it's not that the satellite is sending pings, but the aircraft is sending them, the satellite just happens to listen to everything and records that. So it is not an echo reply like the workings of the networking utility. There are other transponders on an aircraft that do reply on radar pings, but those were apparently turned off. Kbrose (talk) 05:57, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
I believe the article says that the satellite sends them first "Similarly to what happens on a Local Area Network, satellites send pings (once a hour) to their receiving peers that respond to it thus signaling their network presence," so in that sense it is just ping, but instead of on an IP network, a SATCOM network. ACARS was turned off, but the underlying protocol, SATCOM was not. I think ACARS is some sort of software that uses SATCOM to communicate. Feel free to delete if you don't think it's notable enough for the bottom of the article. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 06:01, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, it's more complex than I thought, I am finding out, and that makes the inclusion even more dubious. I'll sleep on it for a day... Kbrose (talk) 06:11, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
For now, I've put an off topic tag on it. Good night, and thanks for your support! – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 06:24, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello there! I'm really sorry, but "Notable uses of ping" section looked almost like a joke, so I went ahead WP:BOLDly and deleted it while preserving its references as two external links. However, I'm not sure that those even deserve to remain as external links, as they're talking about using the Doppler effect and such stuff. If we'd go so far in generalizing ping, then we can also include more stuff related to submarines and their sonar pings. :) Hope you agree. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 07:26, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Yep, it's all good! The MH370 stuff was left over from the deletion of the "Other uses of pinging" section which sounded almost as ridiculous. I fixed it and left it there because I wasn't sure if there was a consensus to include some sort of explanation of ping as it related to the incident. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 08:04, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Great, I'm glad you're fine with that! I saw the whole evolution of "Notable uses of ping" section, :) and it's good such stuff isn't part of the article any longer. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 08:11, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
@Dsimic: Yeah, thanks for dropping by to help fix the article! :) – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 15:36, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
You're welcome, and thank you for starting the article cleanup. :) — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 21:25, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Message format section unnecessary

Should this article include the message format which is only of interest to a very few people needing to implement a ping command and host response? Isn't the reference to the RFCs sufficient? DGerman (talk) 16:35, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Or even just a link to Internet Control Message Protocol, with a brief mention of the normal payload for echo request/response. Doesn't seem necessary to reproduce the IP header layout, at the very least. Sneftel (talk) 19:00, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ping_(networking_utility)/Archive_2&oldid=1136374206"