Talk:Internet Control Message Protocol

Computing: Networking C‑class 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
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Networking task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

The content of ICMP Source Quench was merged into Internet Control Message Protocol on 2012-12-20. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. For the discussion at that location, see its talk page.

The content of ICMP Redirect Message was merged into Internet Control Message Protocol on 2012-12-20. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. For the discussion at that location, see its talk page.

The content of ICMP Time Exceeded was merged into Internet Control Message Protocol on 2012-12-20. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. For the discussion at that location, see its talk page.

The content of ICMP Timestamp was merged into Internet Control Message Protocol on 2012-12-20. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. For the discussion at that location, see its talk page.

The content of ICMP Timestamp Reply was merged into Internet Control Message Protocol on 2012-12-20. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. For the discussion at that location, see its talk page.

The content of ICMP Address Mask Request was merged into Internet Control Message Protocol on 2012-12-20. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. For the discussion at that location, see its talk page.

The content of ICMP Address Mask Reply was merged into Internet Control Message Protocol on 2012-12-20. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. For the discussion at that location, see its talk page.

The content of ICMP Destination Unreachable was merged into Internet Control Message Protocol on 2012-12-20. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. For the discussion at that location, see its talk page.

Bad packet structure

how come the source address and destination address in the packet structure table are only 16 bits long ? ips are 32 bits long. see also IP packet format

Color accessibility

In the table of the segment structure, the ICMP header is only labeled with color. The Wikipedia Accessibility guidelines do not recommend this since blind people cannot differentiate the important information. Please use text notes, bold, italics, or some other form of distinguishment. --65.11.180.160 05:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ICMP segment structure ?

Echo and Timestamp request / reply (and some others) use identifier and sequence numbers. Other ICMP messages (such as Destination Unreachable) do not use them. I think the figure is wrong for illustrating ICMP as a whole. Rjgodoy (talk) 01:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Header format

Why are the header bit positions specified from the start of the IP header? This is ... curious, at best. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.81.244.229 (talk) 00:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved, no consensus that this is the most common usage of the term. Taelus (talk) 13:43, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Internet Control Message Protocol → ICMP — WP:COMMONNAME and this discussion. cf. HTML. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:55, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I don't agree that WP:COMMONNAME applies here, International Commission on Missing Persons is just as common and it's known world-wide and to the general public, whereas Internet Control Message Protocol is only common to us Internet geeks. -- œ ^™ 23:02, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Major merge

There is a family of articles associated with ICMP. I assert that one article covering all versions and functions of ICMP would best serve readers and have proposed merging all this material into this article. -—Kvng 01:09, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I whole heartedly agree. All ICMP articles apart from the base one are short, and reference to it. --Dalibor Dragojevic (talk) 11:46, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Dalibor. 1exec1 (talk) 03:15, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Thanks for this suggestion. I also support it. Regards. --nha, from Lyon, France. (talk) 18:34, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support, but when you merge them, notice that the ICMPv6 article improves understanding of the protocol by classifying messages into two categories: error messages and information messages. -- Dave Braunschweig (talk) 13:44, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, the risk of confusion is too great. Electron9 (talk) 10:35, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of confusion are you talking about? -—Kvng 19:09, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mainly IPv4 and IPv6, ie what belongs to what. Electron9 (talk) 02:43, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I started to look at the ICMPv6 merge and there does appear to be a problem here. They've renumbered code points in IGMPv6 making it a different protocol. -—Kvng 00:26, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've completed the easy merges. Plenty of additional cleanup to do. -—Kvng 22:08, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting cleanup completed. -—Kvng 19:22, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm calling this one done. The ICMPv6 merge does not look like it will be helpful. ICMP Router Discovery Protocol is a separate protocol that makes use of ICMP. -—Kvng 15:19, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ICMP Exploits

I found this article about a man-in-the-middle attack called "DoubleDirect", which makes use of ICMP Redirect packets to modify routing tables on the victim host. This attack would force network traffic to flow via an arbitrary network path for a particular IP address.

I wanted to add this to the Redirect section, but this is currently just about the technical details. Which would be an appropriate section to place this?

The article I wanted to quote is at http://blog.zimperium.com/doubledirect-zimperium-discovers-full-duplex-icmp-redirect-attacks-in-the-wild/

invenio tc 01:11, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On that note, I've just noticed that the Data section mentions an ICMP abuse. Should there be a completely new section Abuse or Exploits that detail possible scenarios?

Yes, WP:BEBOLD and add a new section. If another editor, comes up with a better way to incorporate the new cited information, they can make the improvement. ~KvnG 15:06, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Black Nurse

Low bandwidth high impact DOS attack: http://arstechnica.com/security/2016/11/new-attack-reportedly-lets-1-modest-laptop-knock-big-servers-offline/ Hcobb (talk) 18:46, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The FAQ about the port number of ICMP packet

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I added the FAQ about the port number of ICMP packet, I think that it is commonly misunderstood, please feel free to edit the contents below on the article if necessary.

The Internet Control Message Protocol(ICMP) is one of the protocols in the Network layer(Layer 3). There is no TCP/UDP port number for ICMP packet as the TCP/UDP port are the part of the Transport layer(Layer 4). List of TCP and UDP port numbers is located to the Transport layer in the 7 layers of OSI model. Goodtiming1788 (talk) 04:40, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]