Have you tried tracepath since it uses UDP? tracepath -4 -b <outside ipV4 address> or tracepath -6 -b <outside ipV6 address> or even tracepath -b www.google.com
TCP ping would be another method. On Tue, Apr 22, 2025 at 8:35 AM Michael Tremer <[email protected]> wrote: > Hello Robin, > > > On 20 Apr 2025, at 23:52, Robin Roevens <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > Hi All > > > > I recently changed my internet provider and I noticed that both the > > gateway graph on cgi-bin/netother.cgi and my Zabbix gateway ping check > > no longer work. > > Yes, some ISPs don’t respond do ICMP echo requests to the gateway. I have > no idea why really, but it is not uncommon. > > > It seems that my current provider blocks ICMP pings on the gateway > > address. > > So I was wondering if it wouldn't be better to use arping instead of > > normal ping to check the latency of the gateway? This should always > > works regardless of firewalls of the provider.. I think? > > This is a good idea. An ARP ping should always work, because otherwise > there is no way to discover the layer 2 address of the gateway. But that > obviously only applies to internet connections that actually use ARP. PPP > connections don’t use ARP for example. > > We are also using collectd which is using liboping and that only supports > ICMP. > > > I can quite easily change this Zabbix check. But I'm not sure about the > > graph on netother.cgi; I can look into that if you all think that > > change would be a good idea? Or if anyone could give me some pointers > > on where to start looking? > > I think so. It could be an option for the future. > > If the gateway does not respond to pings, you should automatically fall > back to ping.ipfire.org <http://ping.ipfire.org/> though. So the graph > should always have some data to show. > > Best, > -Michael > > > > > Regards > > Robin > > > > -- > > Dit bericht is gescanned op virussen en andere gevaarlijke > > inhoud door MailScanner en lijkt schoon te zijn. > > > > > > >
