Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

TTL field and DF flag addition #54

Closed
fdauti opened this issue Jun 8, 2022 · 5 comments
Closed

TTL field and DF flag addition #54

fdauti opened this issue Jun 8, 2022 · 5 comments

Comments

@fdauti
Copy link

fdauti commented Jun 8, 2022

Hello and thank you for your development of icmplib.

I'm using it as part of a tool for diagnostic purposes. I wanted to ask if it is possible to include these two parameters as part of future development. First one is a "df" parameter as a feature, so that if set to True, will enable the Don't Fragment flag in the IP header. Second one is a ttl return value, corresponding to the ttl field value in received packet. Or maybe there is something related to the above but I'm missing them.

Thanks again and regards.

@ValentinBELYN
Copy link
Owner

Hi @fdauti,

Thanks for using icmplib!

Adding the DF flag should be possible. However, not having enough time to devote to icmplib at the moment, you will have to wait a bit.

For the TTL, there have been several requests in the past on this subject but I do not understand the point of retrieving this information (the remote equipment responds with an initial TTL which may vary). Moreover, not having access to the IP header in IPv6, I can only retrieve this information in IPv4.

@firefrei
Copy link

firefrei commented Mar 8, 2023

Hi,
I would also be interested in the DF bit for testing respectively verification of fragmentation in the network.

Cheers,
Matthias

@aztec102
Copy link

Good afternoon
I’ll also say that I would very much like to see in the library possible checks without fragmentation.

@TonyFlury
Copy link

I Opened an almost Duplicate of this for a DF flag - i think an additional option in the ICMPScoket or ICMPRequest would be the right place - would you object if I did a clone/fork and attempted to build a Pull request to add this feature, or would you prefer to keep development entirely in house ?

@ValentinBELYN
Copy link
Owner

Closing in favor of #71.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

5 participants