Camaleón on 26/10/10 07:04, wrote:
On Mon, 25 Oct 2010 23:37:44 +0100, Adam Hardy wrote:
Camaleón on 25/10/10 11:04, wrote:
Seriously slightly quirky, but now it's better than windows again,
which is the way it should be.
The only thing it could make a difference between Windows "tracert" and
Linux "traceroute" is iptables but I 'm not sure about that (how can
iptables interfere with traceroute, by blocking/filtering packets? :-?)
I didn't mean linux traceroute was quirky in execution - I just meant
the options were not ideal for me. The dumbed-down version on windows
was just right for my abilities and knowledge and what I wanted. But
then if I hadn't used the windows traceroute first I might never have
developed such preconceptions.
Well, Windows traceroute defaults to icmp while linux one seems to be
using udp which can be problematic with firewalls, so the windows
counterpart is a bit more "sensible" for today's routing diagnostics.
But true is that there is a slightly difference in the output we get from
a windows box traceroute and linux so besides the traceroute utility
itself there must be something in between which interferes/alters the
results.
I collated them in a spreadsheet just to check and I can't see any difference. I
think if you were talking about the tracert output I showed before they were
probably taken at different times completely.
L 2 192.168.1.1 0.534ms
W 2 192.168.1.1 1ms
L 3 217.32.146.168 5.801ms
W 3 217.32.146.168 6ms
L 4 217.32.146.222 7.764ms
W 4 217.32.146.222 7ms
L 5 213.120.177.58 5.998ms
W 5 213.120.177.58 7ms
L 6 213.120.176.62 5.803ms
W 6 213.120.176.62 *
L 7 213.120.176.182 6.017ms
W 7 213.120.176.182 6ms
L 8 acc1-10GigE-0-7-0-5.l-far.21cn-ipp.bt.net 6.241ms
W 8 acc1-10GigE-0-7-0-5.l-far.21cn-ipp.bt.net 7ms
L 9 core2-te0-14-4-0.ealing.ukcore.bt.net 7.884ms
W 9 core2-te0-14-4-0.ealing.ukcore.bt.net 8ms
L 10 transit2-xe1-1-0.ealing.ukcore.bt.net 6.886ms
W 10 transit2-xe1-1-0.ealing.ukcore.bt.net 7ms
L 11 t2c2-ge8-0-0.uk-eal.eu.bt.net 6.695ms
W 11 t2c2-ge8-0-0.uk-eal.eu.bt.net 8ms
L 12 195.50.91.153 7.236ms
W 12 195.50.91.153 14ms
L 13 ae-32-52.ebr2.London2.Level3.net 17.483ms
W 13 ae-32-56.ebr2.London2.Level3.net 17ms
L 14 ae-3-3.ebr1.London1.Level3.net 7.583ms
W 14 ae-3-3.ebr1.London1.Level3.net 8ms
L 15 ae-100-100.ebr2.London1.Level3.net 6.965ms
W 15 ae-100-100.ebr2.London1.Level3.net 8ms
L 16 ae-43-43.ebr1.NewYork1.Level3.net 75.931ms
W 16 ae-43-43.ebr1.NewYork1.Level3.net 77ms
L 17 ae-4-4.ebr1.NewYork2.Level3.net 75.984ms
W 17 ae-4-4.ebr1.NewYork2.Level3.net 77ms
L 18 ae-1-51.edge2.NewYork2.Level3.net 81.317ms
W 18 ae-1-51.edge2.NewYork2.Level3.net 77ms
L 19 mci-level3-xe.newyork2.Level3.net 75.777ms
W 19 mci-level3-xe.newyork2.Level3.net 159ms
L 20 0.ae2.XL4.NYC4.ALTER.NET 75.614ms
W 20 0.ae2.XL4.NYC4.ALTER.NET 76ms
L 21 0.so-7-1-0.XL4.BOS4.ALTER.NET 83.228ms
W 21 0.so-7-1-0.XL4.BOS4.ALTER.NET 84ms
L 22 POS7-0-0.GW12.BOS4.ALTER.NET 83.296ms
W 22 POS7-0-0.GW12.BOS4.ALTER.NET 84ms
L 23 interactivebrokers-gw.customer.alter.net 91.274ms
W 23 interactivebrokers-gw.customer.alter.net 93ms
L 24 mktgw1.ibllc.com 91.077ms
W 24 mktgw1.ibllc.com 92ms
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4cc69840.7000...@cyberspaceroad.com
