icmpv4 time exceeded message

[zeeshanlakhani]

Description

Time Exceeded Message defined in [IETF RFC 792] (for ICMPv4).

Also includes:

• doc fixes for links to private fns

Type of change

• New protocol
• Documentation update

Checklist

• Associated tests
• Associated documentation

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #102 into master will increase coverage by 0.14%.
The diff coverage is 73.17%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master     #102      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   67.00%   67.15%   +0.14%     
==========================================
  Files          63       64       +1     
  Lines        5377     5459      +82     
==========================================
+ Hits         3603     3666      +63     
- Misses       1774     1793      +19     

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
core/src/packets/icmp/v4/mod.rs	83.33% <0.00%> (+1.03%)	⬆️
core/src/packets/icmp/v6/mod.rs	80.15% <ø> (ø)
core/src/packets/icmp/v6/ndp/redirect.rs	75.60% <ø> (ø)
core/src/packets/icmp/v6/time_exceeded.rs	68.65% <ø> (ø)
core/src/packets/icmp/v6/too_big.rs	70.27% <ø> (ø)
core/src/packets/icmp/v4/time_exceeded.rs	74.07% <74.07%> (ø)
core/src/testils/proptest/strategy.rs	83.02% <0.00%> (+0.45%)	⬆️

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update ab5001d...ba9e792. Read the comment docs.

[drunkirishcoder]

👍 good.

[drunkirishcoder]

noticed that functions on Icmpv4 and Icmpv6 have inconsistent visibility scopes. msg_type, code, set_code, checksum, compute_checksum should all be pub on Icmpv6. then don't need to fix these links anymore.

[zeeshanlakhani]

good. I was going to do this, but wasn't sure why we had the inconsistency.

[drunkirishcoder]

yep not sure how I missed this, but they need to be public so extending Icmpv6 is possible from outside the crate.