Talk:Ping (networking utility)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ping (networking utility) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3: 4 months

Computing: Software / Free and open-source software Low‑importance

	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.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Software.
	This article is supported by Free and open-source software (assessed as Mid-importance).

Move book?

I don't think the comment about the childrens book supplies any information to the wiki besides the fact that the book exists. Could we move this information to a seperate page? Hopefully then at least it might be developed beyond the stubby link. Is Ping (Literature) accepatable? MB 21:23 16 May 2003 (UTC)

When we have any info, it can be put at The Story of Ping - but we should have a link from here to there so anyone coming here in search of info about the book can be directed there. Or so I feel. Martin

Clarify the security/denial section

All modern operating systems are resilient against ping flood attacks. The sentience already says "...has been considered as a security risk.." and I think it's worth beginning this section by noting that this is a mostly historical issue TmuSrnn (talk) 21:08, 3 Jan 2016 (UTC)

Title

Not sure if the "ping" in the title is meant to be lowercase or not, so I'm just bringing this up if there's anyone who knows for sure and will fix it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shradibop (talk • contribs) 15:25, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Conflicting info on 'Type' for 'Echo Request' and 'Echo Reply' for 'ICMP packet transported with IPv4'

Coming to this page from the ICMP article, I've noticed in the section 'Control messages' that there the Type for an 'Echo Request' is 8 and for an 'Echo Reply' 0, whereas here in the section 'Message format' under 'ICMP packet transported with IPv4' the type for 'Echo Request' is 0 and for 'Echo Reply' 8. The source listed in the ICMP article mentioned above cites RFC 792 page 14, where the type for an 'echo message' is set to 8 and for an 'echo reply message' to 0, and checking with Cisco Packet Tracer (which I had open to test some things per chance) the ping request packet has type 8 and the reply type 0, which would mean that the type for 'Echo Request' and 'Echo Reply' in this article are reversed unless I missed something. Dnielbloqg (talk) 10:47, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]