[Wifidog] [Fwd: Re: connection problem]

[Philippe April]

Yeah...

Guillaume had tried to do an arpping last time and it was quite tricky 
after all... He's the one who mentionned that idea first in a meeting. 
Mina/other guys if you have time, take a look at it and see if you can 
produce sample demo code of that. I took a look too and couldn't find 
out how to do it clean if I remember.

In the meanwhile, I took parts of dnsmasq that does a regular ping for 
a proof-of-concept.

I have everything that sends the ICMP echo request, without waiting for 
it to come back (is this OK per design? I suppose so).

I can test it at home and evaluate if it works properly or not.

Requesting that clients respond to ICMP in order to stay alive "better" 
is not really asking much in my opinion.

If you guys are wondering why I respond to emails at 3:40am, wellllll 
it's not so much because I love WiFiDog (even though I do) but because 
I gotta do maintenance at work and I'm up :)

On 1-Feb-05, at 12:16 AM, Thomas Guyot-Sionnest wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> I think the cleanest way is to first check the counters, then check the
> local arp, and finally do an arp-request for that address.
>
> Thomas
>
> Mina Naguib wrote:
> |
> | Another $0.02: If the ICMP thing doesn't fly, we could go a level 
> lower
> | by using an ARP ping (who-has 1.2.3.4 ? tell 1.1.1.1).  Dug Song's
> | `dsniff` package has a binary called `arping` that does just that - 
> I've
> | also seen a similar binary included in the core components of some
> | distros (for example net-misc/iputils in gentoo has it)
> |
> | I don't think any client can refuse to reply to ARP pings, otherwise
> | they wouldn't be online in the first place.  Also I don't know of any
> | personal windows firewalls that can block those (I believe up to 
> windows
> | XP SP2, normal programs did not have access to raw sockets)
> |
> | Depending on what you find with your testing, I could go through
> | arping's code to see how simple it is.  The solution may be as 
> simple as
> | having a wifidog thread looping over all connected IPs every X 
> (where X
> | is less than the timeout) and arp-pinging them.
> |
> | Now that I think about it, I don't know if ARP packets would count
> | against iptables counters or not, making this entire point moot.
> |
> | hmmm... will test my theories.
>
>
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iD8DBQFB/xDJ6dZ+Kt5BchYRAluTAJ9r4O5Nnq6+bYYFHxlBvq15HBCi9QCdHZcd
> mIQLMmIEzkcK9GDafDaAVH8=
> =SKQb
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wifidog mailing list
> Wifidog at isf.waglo.com
> http://isf.waglo.com/mailman/listinfo/wifidog_isf.waglo.com
>
Philippe April


-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
Wifidog mailing list
Wifidog at isf.waglo.com
http://isf.waglo.com/mailman/listinfo/wifidog_isf.waglo.com