ability to use ICMP Echo for Netpath services

I'll be brave and cast the lone "nay" vote, per understanding NetPath's intent, via the great explanation from cobrien​ (see above).

If I want to use ping, I can ping manually or with one of the tools in the Engineer's Toolset.

The same for traceroute.

I love the fact that NetPath, as released currently, does an accurate job displaying and tracking the actual path that an application would take, instead of the path ping and traceroute might take.

The impression I get is that many of us are familiar with ICMP's basics, and with tracert, and we expect NetPath to simply be the graphic display of either.  But NetPath is better than either ICMP or traceroute for the simple reasons that ICMP and Traceroute may be denied by firewall rules where an applications port is NOT denied.  And ICMP just doesn't transit routers the same way that an application does.

Instead of using ICMP, testing a path via an already-allowed port like TCP 443 or 22 (or whatever port our applications use) lets us test accurately without having to contact intermediary carriers to allow ICMP response, or to allow some other new port to be tracked, or needing some new firewall rule.

Be careful of what you ask for--NetPath was well thought out and well deployed.  Adding ICMP as a replacement won't let it be as good a tool as it is today, and it will enable users to dumb it down and receive inaccurate path readings.

If you DO add an option in the future for ICMP, please don't take away the current functionality.  ICMP must never replace the present NetPath ability of showing the actual path through routers that an application will take.

I'll be brave and cast the lone "nay" vote, per understanding NetPath's intent, via the great explanation from cobrien​ (see above).

If I want to use ping, I can ping manually or with one of the tools in the Engineer's Toolset.

The same for traceroute.

I love the fact that NetPath, as released currently, does an accurate job displaying and tracking the actual path that an application would take, instead of the path ping and traceroute might take.

The impression I get is that many of us are familiar with ICMP's basics, and with tracert, and we expect NetPath to simply be the graphic display of either.  But NetPath is better than either ICMP or traceroute for the simple reasons that ICMP and Traceroute may be denied by firewall rules where an applications port is NOT denied.  And ICMP just doesn't transit routers the same way that an application does.

Instead of using ICMP, testing a path via an already-allowed port like TCP 443 or 22 (or whatever port our applications use) lets us test accurately without having to contact intermediary carriers to allow ICMP response, or to allow some other new port to be tracked, or needing some new firewall rule.

Be careful of what you ask for--NetPath was well thought out and well deployed.  Adding ICMP as a replacement won't let it be as good a tool as it is today, and it will enable users to dumb it down and receive inaccurate path readings.

If you DO add an option in the future for ICMP, please don't take away the current functionality.  ICMP must never replace the present NetPath ability of showing the actual path through routers that an application will take.

Very wise advice!

It would be nice to have it all in one place without loosing any current functionality. Engineers toolkit is nice but its yet another bit to open.