4 ms·

Google rate limits ICMP to 8.8.8.8. It’s not meant to be used as your personal “is the internet up” test.

nikisweeting 7y ago
I use my own server or 1.1.1.1 for uptime checks, but 8.8.8.8 was my DNS fallback when 1.1.1.1 went down, which then meant I had no DNS working at all, which is why I noticed and tried pinging them.
tyingq 7y ago
He probably pinged it because DNS wasn't working. It is meant to be his personal DNS resolver.
mindslight 7y ago
Seriously? If true that's an awfully quick bait and switch, even for Google.
- ceejayoz 7y ago
  How is it bait and switch? 8.8.8.8 was never marketed as a "ping me to see if the Internet is up" service, as far as I know. Just as a fast, public DNS server.
  - mindslight 7y ago
    An important use of well known easy to type IP addresses is when you're mucking around to figure out if your upstream network isn't working. I could see if they attempted to set a new standard by just not responding to ICMP at all (although turning around an icmp echo takes less work than a DNS lookup...), but responding intermittently is actively harmful.
    - ceejayoz 7y ago
      You haven't identified the "bait" bit of the bait and switch. At no point has Google promised to respond to pings on 8.8.8.8, nor are they obliged to ever do so. Rejecting ICMP isn't "a new standard".
      - mindslight 7y ago
        The promise is implicit when competing for mindshare with 4.2.2.2. Typing an IP address into a router setup is quite infrequent, compared to "let's check connectivity by ping x.x.x.x". Setting expectations that 8.8.8.8 can fill this role is the bait. As I said, it's much easier to respond to a ping than even a cached DNS query. Or it would also be consistent to simply never respond to ping. Now obviously in the modern "you get nothing for nothing" world, Google is able to violate whatever expectations they'd like. But "rate limiting" in a way that makes basic ping(8)s look flaky, especially on a service that will be used for debugging, is downright nasty and deserves to be shouted from the rooftops (iff it's true).
        chimeracoder 7y ago
        > The promise is implicit when competing for mindshare with 4.2.2.2. Typing an IP address into a router setup is quite infrequent, compared to "let's check connectivity by ping x.x.x.x". Setting expectations that 8.8.8.8 can fill this role is the bait. 4.2.2.2 is not even meant to be used as a public DNS server (and has sometimes hijacked DNS requests at times to remind people of that). So it's weird to use 4.2.2.2 to criticize Google for blocking ICMP on their actually-public DNS server.
        mindslight 7y ago
        Sure, that's Level 3's official position. Unofficially, everyone uses it and there is clearly someone inside making the deliberate decision to keep it publicly available. https://www.tummy.com/articles/famous-dns-server/ https://www.tummy.com/articles/famous-dns-server/ As I said, the crux of the problem isn't Google's "blocking", but rather making it intermittent. Obviously it's well within their rights to play whatever games they want - drop every other packet, vary the latency based on your IP, duplicate packets, or make it appear some queue occasionally holds your packets for 3 seconds. It's also within their rights to redirect all DNS lookups to an April Fool's page. And to do any of this selectively based on how many different Google services you use. But that is not what any user expects, and in the end that's all protocols are - expectations. To me, the pushback I've gotten here fits right in with Surveillance Valley's general attitude of shirking responsibility with some fine print disclaimer, knowing full well what the constructive situation is. "I'm just going to go like this [spinning arms], it's not my fault if you walk into me". If you can't see how people would expect to be able to reliably ping 8.8.8.8, or how intermittently dropping pings causes confusion (as in the original comment above), then I can't help you.

I use my own server or 1.1.1.1 for uptime checks, but 8.8.8.8 was my DNS fallback when 1.1.1.1 went down, which then meant I had no DNS working at all, which is why I noticed and tried pinging them.

tyingq 7y ago

He probably pinged it because DNS wasn't working. It is meant to be his personal DNS resolver.

mindslight 7y ago

Seriously? If true that's an awfully quick bait and switch, even for Google.

ceejayoz 7y ago
How is it bait and switch? 8.8.8.8 was never marketed as a "ping me to see if the Internet is up" service, as far as I know. Just as a fast, public DNS server.
- mindslight 7y ago
  An important use of well known easy to type IP addresses is when you're mucking around to figure out if your upstream network isn't working. I could see if they attempted to set a new standard by just not responding to ICMP at all (although turning around an icmp echo takes less work than a DNS lookup...), but responding intermittently is actively harmful.
  - ceejayoz 7y ago
    You haven't identified the "bait" bit of the bait and switch. At no point has Google promised to respond to pings on 8.8.8.8, nor are they obliged to ever do so. Rejecting ICMP isn't "a new standard".
    - mindslight 7y ago
      The promise is implicit when competing for mindshare with 4.2.2.2. Typing an IP address into a router setup is quite infrequent, compared to "let's check connectivity by ping x.x.x.x". Setting expectations that 8.8.8.8 can fill this role is the bait. As I said, it's much easier to respond to a ping than even a cached DNS query. Or it would also be consistent to simply never respond to ping. Now obviously in the modern "you get nothing for nothing" world, Google is able to violate whatever expectations they'd like. But "rate limiting" in a way that makes basic ping(8)s look flaky, especially on a service that will be used for debugging, is downright nasty and deserves to be shouted from the rooftops (iff it's true).
      - chimeracoder 7y ago
        > The promise is implicit when competing for mindshare with 4.2.2.2. Typing an IP address into a router setup is quite infrequent, compared to "let's check connectivity by ping x.x.x.x". Setting expectations that 8.8.8.8 can fill this role is the bait. 4.2.2.2 is not even meant to be used as a public DNS server (and has sometimes hijacked DNS requests at times to remind people of that). So it's weird to use 4.2.2.2 to criticize Google for blocking ICMP on their actually-public DNS server.
        mindslight 7y ago
        Sure, that's Level 3's official position. Unofficially, everyone uses it and there is clearly someone inside making the deliberate decision to keep it publicly available. https://www.tummy.com/articles/famous-dns-server/ https://www.tummy.com/articles/famous-dns-server/ As I said, the crux of the problem isn't Google's "blocking", but rather making it intermittent. Obviously it's well within their rights to play whatever games they want - drop every other packet, vary the latency based on your IP, duplicate packets, or make it appear some queue occasionally holds your packets for 3 seconds. It's also within their rights to redirect all DNS lookups to an April Fool's page. And to do any of this selectively based on how many different Google services you use. But that is not what any user expects, and in the end that's all protocols are - expectations. To me, the pushback I've gotten here fits right in with Surveillance Valley's general attitude of shirking responsibility with some fine print disclaimer, knowing full well what the constructive situation is. "I'm just going to go like this [spinning arms], it's not my fault if you walk into me". If you can't see how people would expect to be able to reliably ping 8.8.8.8, or how intermittently dropping pings causes confusion (as in the original comment above), then I can't help you.