Obviously the subject line is self-evidently true. However... every time 
I hear Rocky Sharpe sing "Return to Sender", I inexplicably find myself 
thinking about ICMP, the Internet Control Message Protocol. (??!)

   I gave a message to my local gateway,
   He forwarded it to the next hop.
   But 84 milliseconds later,
   It came right back to me.

   She wrote upon it:
   ICMP destination unreachable.
   No such network.
   No such protocol.

Perhaps I should seek professional help...

(But do I need a therapist or a lyricist? :-P )

Post a reply to this message

Le 01/03/2012 22:42, Orchid Win7 v1 nous fit lire :
> Obviously the subject line is self-evidently true. However... every time
> I hear Rocky Sharpe sing "Return to Sender", I inexplicably find myself
> thinking about ICMP, the Internet Control Message Protocol. (??!)
> 
>   I gave a message to my local gateway,
>   He forwarded it to the next hop.
>   But 84 milliseconds later,
>   It came right back to me.
> 
>   She wrote upon it:
>   ICMP destination unreachable.
>   No such network.
>   No such protocol.
> 
> Perhaps I should seek professional help...
> 
> (But do I need a therapist or a lyricist? :-P )
> 
You need a network professional. 84 ms as round trip for local gateway
is far too long. That would be a network therapist.

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 01 Mar 2012 22:54:36 +0100, Le_Forgeron wrote:

> Le 01/03/2012 22:42, Orchid Win7 v1 nous fit lire :
>> Obviously the subject line is self-evidently true. However... every
>> time I hear Rocky Sharpe sing "Return to Sender", I inexplicably find
>> myself thinking about ICMP, the Internet Control Message Protocol.
>> (??!)
>> 
>>   I gave a message to my local gateway,
>>   He forwarded it to the next hop.
>>   But 84 milliseconds later,
>>   It came right back to me.
>> 
>>   She wrote upon it:
>>   ICMP destination unreachable.
>>   No such network.
>>   No such protocol.
>> 
>> Perhaps I should seek professional help...
>> 
>> (But do I need a therapist or a lyricist? :-P )
>> 
> You need a network professional. 84 ms as round trip for local gateway
> is far too long. That would be a network therapist.

LOL, I concur. :)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

>> Perhaps I should seek professional help...
>>
>> (But do I need a therapist or a lyricist? :-P )
>>
> You need a network professional. 84 ms as round trip for local gateway
> is far too long. That would be a network therapist.

Who said it was returned by the /local/ gateway? It could be returned by 
any node along the route.

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 01 Mar 2012 22:07:26 +0000, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:

>>> Perhaps I should seek professional help...
>>>
>>> (But do I need a therapist or a lyricist? :-P )
>>>
>> You need a network professional. 84 ms as round trip for local gateway
>> is far too long. That would be a network therapist.
> 
> Who said it was returned by the /local/ gateway? It could be returned by
> any node along the route.

First line of the lyrics:

   I gave a message to my local gateway,

That's where I got it from, though it seems that actually the reply is 
coming from the next hop.

Still, 84 ms is kinda slow for a single hop away.  I'd be talking to the 
ISP. :)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> > Who said it was returned by the /local/ gateway? It could be returned by
> > any node along the route.

> First line of the lyrics:

>    I gave a message to my local gateway,

  Theoretically the local gateway could be at the other side of the
Atlantic (although I assume that this would be highly difficult to
set up in practice).

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Orchid Win7 v1 escreveu:
> (But do I need a therapist or a lyricist? :-P )

you need rhymes. :)

-- 
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 01 Mar 2012 17:23:39 -0500, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> > Who said it was returned by the /local/ gateway? It could be returned
>> > by any node along the route.
> 
>> First line of the lyrics:
> 
>>    I gave a message to my local gateway,
> 
>   Theoretically the local gateway could be at the other side of the
> Atlantic (although I assume that this would be highly difficult to set
> up in practice).

Depends on the networking technology in use.

I've done work with MMV statellite connections, and IIRC, the satellite 
(in geostationary orbit) was the gateway in at least one test case.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

>> Who said it was returned by the /local/ gateway? It could be returned by
>> any node along the route.
>
> First line of the lyrics:
>
>     I gave a message to my local gateway,
>
> That's where I got it from, though it seems that actually the reply is
> coming from the next hop.
>
> Still, 84 ms is kinda slow for a single hop away.  I'd be talking to the
> ISP. :)

I say again: ICMP replies can come from /any/ hop along the route, not 
just the first or second hop.

Exhibit A: traceroute.

Also... At one point we had the misfortune to use a satellite-based 
Internet connection. The /bandwidth/ was fine, but latency was about 200 
ms to ping Google. They had a big expensive HTTP proxy cache on the 
local end to try to hide the latency - which /obviously/ had absolutely 
no effect on the huge array of non-HTTP services we need to run... But 
hey, what do you expect if you try to use a residential broadband 
service set up by three blokes in a van when what you actually need is 
an enterprise-class connection?

Post a reply to this message

On 01/03/2012 10:33 PM, nemesis wrote:
> Orchid Win7 v1 escreveu:
>> (But do I need a therapist or a lyricist? :-P )
>
> you need rhymes. :)

rhymes > mimes :-)

Oh, and rhythm would be good too I guess...

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 02 Mar 2012 09:03:30 +0000, Invisible wrote:

>>> Who said it was returned by the /local/ gateway? It could be returned
>>> by any node along the route.
>>
>> First line of the lyrics:
>>
>>     I gave a message to my local gateway,
>>
>> That's where I got it from, though it seems that actually the reply is
>> coming from the next hop.
>>
>> Still, 84 ms is kinda slow for a single hop away.  I'd be talking to
>> the ISP. :)
> 
> I say again: ICMP replies can come from /any/ hop along the route, not
> just the first or second hop.

Yes, I'm well aware of what ICMP's uses are.  I've only been working with 
TCP/IP and networking in general for 15+ years.

But the lyric says the message was given to the local gateway.  Not to 
some random device on the Internet, but to the gateway itself.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

>>> Still, 84 ms is kinda slow for a single hop away.  I'd be talking to
>>> the ISP. :)
>>
>> I say again: ICMP replies can come from /any/ hop along the route, not
>> just the first or second hop.
>
> Yes, I'm well aware of what ICMP's uses are.  I've only been working with
> TCP/IP and networking in general for 15+ years.
>
> But the lyric says the message was given to the local gateway.  Not to
> some random device on the Internet, but to the gateway itself.

*sigh* To send traffic to a distant host, you first forward it to the 
local gateway. The gateway then forwards it to the next hop, and so forth.

Much like how the original song begins "I gave a letter to the postman, 
he put it in his sack". That's how you send a letter. It doesn't mean 
the letter is actually addressed to the postman himself. Sheesh...

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 02 Mar 2012 11:28:30 +0000, Invisible wrote:

>>>> Still, 84 ms is kinda slow for a single hop away.  I'd be talking to
>>>> the ISP. :)
>>>
>>> I say again: ICMP replies can come from /any/ hop along the route, not
>>> just the first or second hop.
>>
>> Yes, I'm well aware of what ICMP's uses are.  I've only been working
>> with TCP/IP and networking in general for 15+ years.
>>
>> But the lyric says the message was given to the local gateway.  Not to
>> some random device on the Internet, but to the gateway itself.
> 
> *sigh* To send traffic to a distant host, you first forward it to the
> local gateway. The gateway then forwards it to the next hop, and so
> forth.

Of course, I know that - you don't need to explain basic networking 
protocols to me.

We're obviously reading that line with two valid interpretations of the 
lyric.

> Much like how the original song begins "I gave a letter to the postman,
> he put it in his sack". That's how you send a letter. It doesn't mean
> the letter is actually addressed to the postman himself. Sheesh...

You're getting awfully wound up about this.  There's no need - as I said, 
we're each interpreting the line differently.  If you can't see that (or 
see the humour in my interpretation), your loss. :)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

>> Much like how the original song begins "I gave a letter to the postman,
>> he put it in his sack". That's how you send a letter. It doesn't mean
>> the letter is actually addressed to the postman himself. Sheesh...
>
> You're getting awfully wound up about this.  There's no need - as I said,
> we're each interpreting the line differently.  If you can't see that (or
> see the humour in my interpretation), your loss. :)

Perhaps not as wound up as you imagine. I just thought the meaning was 
fairly obvious, that's all...

Now, why this song makes me thing about computer networking in the first 
place? That /is/ slightly worrying. o_O

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 02 Mar 2012 12:53:18 +0000, Invisible wrote:

>>> Much like how the original song begins "I gave a letter to the
>>> postman,
>>> he put it in his sack". That's how you send a letter. It doesn't mean
>>> the letter is actually addressed to the postman himself. Sheesh...
>>
>> You're getting awfully wound up about this.  There's no need - as I
>> said,
>> we're each interpreting the line differently.  If you can't see that
>> (or see the humour in my interpretation), your loss. :)
> 
> Perhaps not as wound up as you imagine. I just thought the meaning was
> fairly obvious, that's all...

Like I said, multiple ways to read it.  But 84 ms RTT would be pretty 
incredible for a large number of hops, that's also true. :)

> Now, why this song makes me thing about computer networking in the first
> place? That /is/ slightly worrying. o_O

"Delivery" having more than one meaning, perhaps? :)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 03/01/2012 04:42 PM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> Obviously the subject line is self-evidently true. However... every time
> I hear Rocky Sharpe sing "Return to Sender", I inexplicably find myself
> thinking about ICMP, the Internet Control Message Protocol. (??!)
>
> I gave a message to my local gateway,
> He forwarded it to the next hop.
> But 84 milliseconds later,
> It came right back to me.
>
> She wrote upon it:
> ICMP destination unreachable.
> No such network.
> No such protocol.
>
> Perhaps I should seek professional help...
>
> (But do I need a therapist or a lyricist? :-P )
>
LOL ... so now I'm humming Return to Sender for no particular reason.

Thank you ... Thank you very much (I do a pretty decent Elvis impersonation)

Post a reply to this message

>> Perhaps I should seek professional help...

> LOL ... so now I'm humming Return to Sender for no particular reason.
>
> Thank you ... Thank you very much (I do a pretty decent Elvis
> impersonation)

No worries. There is no charge for this service. ;-)

Did you know, every Saturday night I go dancing to a live band doing a 
passable impression of Elvis? Seriously, there's money it in...

Post a reply to this message

On 3/2/2012 2:25, Jim Henderson wrote:
> But the lyric says the message was given to the local gateway.  Not to
> some random device on the Internet, but to the gateway itself.

You didn't read the second line, which says the local gateway forwarded it 
on. It's not the local gateway returning the packet. :-)

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   People tell me I am the counter-example.

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 02 Mar 2012 20:30:02 -0800, Darren New wrote:

> On 3/2/2012 2:25, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> But the lyric says the message was given to the local gateway.  Not to
>> some random device on the Internet, but to the gateway itself.
> 
> You didn't read the second line, which says the local gateway forwarded
> it on. It's not the local gateway returning the packet. :-)

I did, eventually.  :)

Jim

Post a reply to this message