RE: Strange scenario
Have you left the default timeout at 2 seconds? If you raise that, you may have more luck. I have seen this on WAN links several times. Jim -Original Message- From: Mustafa Kemal Furat [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2001 6:44 AM To: suaveguru; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Strange scenario Hi! (Ping packets Should be less than 18000 bytes) Did you try changing MTU size to a value less than 12000 on both sides? -Original Message- From: suaveguru [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2001 9:56 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Strange scenario Can I borrow someone=A1=A6s brain since mine is dead. Problem: One of my customer claims they can=A1=A6t ping 15000 bytes per packet cross the satellite link after the circuit was upgraded on Monday. After the test, I confirmed their claim. I couldn=A1=A6t ping anything larger than 12000 bytes cross the link, this is true to all other customers. =20 Questions: Is this limited by the IOS or platform? Do you know if there is a size limitation in the ping command? __ Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35=20 a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Strange scenario
Hi! (Ping packets Should be less than 18000 bytes) Did you try changing MTU size to a value less than 12000 on both sides? -Original Message- From: suaveguru [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2001 9:56 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Strange scenario Can I borrow someone=A1=A6s brain since mine is dead. Problem: One of my customer claims they can=A1=A6t ping 15000 bytes per packet cross the satellite link after the circuit was upgraded on Monday. After the test, I confirmed their claim. I couldn=A1=A6t ping anything larger than 12000 bytes cross the link, this is true to all other customers. =20 Questions: Is this limited by the IOS or platform? Do you know if there is a size limitation in the ping command? __ Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35=20 a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Strange scenario
Can I borrow someone¡¦s brain since mine is dead. Problem: One of my customer claims they can¡¦t ping 15000 bytes per packet cross the satellite link after the circuit was upgraded on Monday. After the test, I confirmed their claim. I couldn¡¦t ping anything larger than 12000 bytes cross the link, this is true to all other customers. Questions: Is this limited by the IOS or platform? Do you know if there is a size limitation in the ping command? __ Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: strange scenario
Increase the size of your ping packets to ~1400 Bytes. If you get the high latency again, from the diagram you can see it is in the Last hop, the connection from the destinatio to it's ISP. What could be causing it? A slow link, A fast link with a high serialization delay, firewall software, overloaded processor, excessive collisions on the output interface of the router, ... It would be more helpful to know: A. What types of links are in Place. B. The config of the destination router C. The "show interfaces" of the destination router Hope that helps, Ejay Hire [EMAIL PROTECTED] CCNA seeking Employment. Original Message Follows From: "Yee, Jason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: "Yee, Jason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "cisco@groupstudy. com (E-mail)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: strange scenario Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 20:26:22 -0500 hi guys and gals One strange scenario that happens is that when I ping and traceroute to a destination 202.161.128.202 from internet : It shows high latency times between the last 2 hops : 312 ms12 ms12 ms 203.117.0.90 414 ms24 ms24 ms f0-0-r21.cyberway.com.sg [203.117.0.132] 513 ms15 ms14 ms 61.8.230.1 614 ms23 ms24 ms 61.8.254.91 7 119 ms 118 ms 120 ms 210.175.161.137 8 120 ms 119 ms 119 ms tyo-i1.tyo-core1.ntt.net [210.175.160.43] 9 222 ms 223 ms 221 ms sjc-i1.tyo-sjc1.ntt.net [210.175.160.98] 10 224 ms 225 ms 225 ms p1-1-2-3.r06.plalca01.us.bb.verio.net [129.250.1 6.21] 11 233 ms 232 ms 232 ms p4-1-0-0.r00.lsanca01.us.bb.verio.net [129.250.2 .114] 12 238 ms 237 ms 236 ms p1.att.r00.lsanca01.us.bb.verio.net [129.250.9.3 4] 13 240 ms 239 ms 239 ms gbr3-p50.la2ca.ip.att.net [12.123.28.130] 14 226 ms 226 ms 227 ms gbr4-p20.sffca.ip.att.net [12.122.2.69] 15 234 ms 234 ms 234 ms gbr2-p100.sffca.ip.att.net [12.122.1.190] 16 236 ms 234 ms 234 ms gar1-p370.sffca.ip.att.net [12.123.13.61] 17 290 ms 291 ms 291 ms 12.123.195.21 18 292 ms 293 ms 291 ms 12.125.94.10 19 277 ms 279 ms 278 ms 202.161.130.21 20 861 ms 861 ms 861 ms 202.161.128.202 Trace complete. Pinging 202.161.128.202 with 32 bytes of data: Reply from 202.161.128.202: bytes=32 time=856ms TTL=238 Reply from 202.161.128.202: bytes=32 time=854ms TTL=238 Reply from 202.161.128.202: bytes=32 time=854ms TTL=238 Reply from 202.161.128.202: bytes=32 time=853ms TTL=238 However when I do a ping and traceroute on my second last router it shows healthy ping times between this router and the destination Router>ping 202.161.128.202 Type escape sequence to abort. Sending 5, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 202.161.128.202, timeout is 2 seconds: ! Success rate is 100 percent (5/5), round-trip min/avg/max = 580/583/584 ms Router>trace 202.161.128.202 Type escape sequence to abort. Tracing the route to 202.161.128.202 1 202.161.128.202 572 msec 572 msec 580 msec Why is this so and is there really a latency problem and if so at which point is latency at ? thanks Jason **NOTE: New CCNA/CCDA List has been formed. For more information go to http://www.groupstudy.com/list/Associates.html _ UPDATED Posting Guidelines: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/guide.html FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com. **NOTE: New CCNA/CCDA List has been formed. For more information go to http://www.groupstudy.com/list/Associates.html _ UPDATED Posting Guidelines: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/guide.html FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: strange scenario
Where are the healthy ping times you mentioned? Pinging from hop 19 to 20 took 583 ms. The traceroute showed that it took 278 ms to get to hop 19 and 861 ms to get to hop 20. That's a difference of exactly 583 ms. Seems like the latency is between 19 and 20... I don't see anything weird about it though. Michael --- "Yee, Jason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > hi guys and gals > > One strange scenario that happens is that when I > ping and traceroute to a > destination 202.161.128.202 from internet : > > It shows high latency times between the last 2 hops > : > > 312 ms12 ms12 ms 203.117.0.90 > 414 ms24 ms24 ms > f0-0-r21.cyberway.com.sg [203.117.0.132] > 513 ms15 ms14 ms 61.8.230.1 > 614 ms23 ms24 ms 61.8.254.91 > 7 119 ms 118 ms 120 ms 210.175.161.137 > 8 120 ms 119 ms 119 ms > tyo-i1.tyo-core1.ntt.net [210.175.160.43] > 9 222 ms 223 ms 221 ms > sjc-i1.tyo-sjc1.ntt.net [210.175.160.98] > 10 224 ms 225 ms 225 ms > p1-1-2-3.r06.plalca01.us.bb.verio.net > [129.250.1 > 6.21] > 11 233 ms 232 ms 232 ms > p4-1-0-0.r00.lsanca01.us.bb.verio.net > [129.250.2 > .114] > 12 238 ms 237 ms 236 ms > p1.att.r00.lsanca01.us.bb.verio.net > [129.250.9.3 > 4] > 13 240 ms 239 ms 239 ms > gbr3-p50.la2ca.ip.att.net [12.123.28.130] > 14 226 ms 226 ms 227 ms > gbr4-p20.sffca.ip.att.net [12.122.2.69] > 15 234 ms 234 ms 234 ms > gbr2-p100.sffca.ip.att.net [12.122.1.190] > 16 236 ms 234 ms 234 ms > gar1-p370.sffca.ip.att.net [12.123.13.61] > 17 290 ms 291 ms 291 ms 12.123.195.21 > 18 292 ms 293 ms 291 ms 12.125.94.10 > 19 277 ms 279 ms 278 ms 202.161.130.21 > 20 861 ms 861 ms 861 ms 202.161.128.202 > > Trace complete. > > > > > Pinging 202.161.128.202 with 32 bytes of data: > > Reply from 202.161.128.202: bytes=32 time=856ms > TTL=238 > Reply from 202.161.128.202: bytes=32 time=854ms > TTL=238 > Reply from 202.161.128.202: bytes=32 time=854ms > TTL=238 > Reply from 202.161.128.202: bytes=32 time=853ms > TTL=238 > > > > > However when I do a ping and traceroute on my second > last router it shows > healthy ping times between this router and the > destination > > Router>ping 202.161.128.202 > > Type escape sequence to abort. > Sending 5, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 202.161.128.202, > timeout is 2 seconds: > ! > Success rate is 100 percent (5/5), round-trip > min/avg/max = 580/583/584 ms > Router>trace 202.161.128.202 > > Type escape sequence to abort. > Tracing the route to 202.161.128.202 > > 1 202.161.128.202 572 msec 572 msec 580 msec > > > Why is this so and is there really a latency problem > and if so at which > point is latency at ? > > > thanks > > Jason > > > **NOTE: New CCNA/CCDA List has been formed. For more > information go to > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/Associates.html > _ > UPDATED Posting Guidelines: > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/guide.html > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: > http://www.groupstudy.com > Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Photos - 35mm Quality Prints, Now Get 15 Free! http://photos.yahoo.com/ **NOTE: New CCNA/CCDA List has been formed. For more information go to http://www.groupstudy.com/list/Associates.html _ UPDATED Posting Guidelines: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/guide.html FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: strange scenario
Where are the healthy ping times you mentioned? Pinging from hop 19 to 20 took 583 ms. The traceroute showed that it took 278 ms to get to hop 19 and 861 ms to get to hop 20. That's a difference of exactly 583 ms. Seems like the latency is between 19 and 20... I don't see anything weird about it though. Michael --- "Yee, Jason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > hi guys and gals > > One strange scenario that happens is that when I > ping and traceroute to a > destination 202.161.128.202 from internet : > > It shows high latency times between the last 2 hops > : > > 312 ms12 ms12 ms 203.117.0.90 > 414 ms24 ms24 ms > f0-0-r21.cyberway.com.sg [203.117.0.132] > 513 ms15 ms14 ms 61.8.230.1 > 614 ms23 ms24 ms 61.8.254.91 > 7 119 ms 118 ms 120 ms 210.175.161.137 > 8 120 ms 119 ms 119 ms > tyo-i1.tyo-core1.ntt.net [210.175.160.43] > 9 222 ms 223 ms 221 ms > sjc-i1.tyo-sjc1.ntt.net [210.175.160.98] > 10 224 ms 225 ms 225 ms > p1-1-2-3.r06.plalca01.us.bb.verio.net > [129.250.1 > 6.21] > 11 233 ms 232 ms 232 ms > p4-1-0-0.r00.lsanca01.us.bb.verio.net > [129.250.2 > .114] > 12 238 ms 237 ms 236 ms > p1.att.r00.lsanca01.us.bb.verio.net > [129.250.9.3 > 4] > 13 240 ms 239 ms 239 ms > gbr3-p50.la2ca.ip.att.net [12.123.28.130] > 14 226 ms 226 ms 227 ms > gbr4-p20.sffca.ip.att.net [12.122.2.69] > 15 234 ms 234 ms 234 ms > gbr2-p100.sffca.ip.att.net [12.122.1.190] > 16 236 ms 234 ms 234 ms > gar1-p370.sffca.ip.att.net [12.123.13.61] > 17 290 ms 291 ms 291 ms 12.123.195.21 > 18 292 ms 293 ms 291 ms 12.125.94.10 > 19 277 ms 279 ms 278 ms 202.161.130.21 > 20 861 ms 861 ms 861 ms 202.161.128.202 > > Trace complete. > > > > > Pinging 202.161.128.202 with 32 bytes of data: > > Reply from 202.161.128.202: bytes=32 time=856ms > TTL=238 > Reply from 202.161.128.202: bytes=32 time=854ms > TTL=238 > Reply from 202.161.128.202: bytes=32 time=854ms > TTL=238 > Reply from 202.161.128.202: bytes=32 time=853ms > TTL=238 > > > > > However when I do a ping and traceroute on my second > last router it shows > healthy ping times between this router and the > destination > > Router>ping 202.161.128.202 > > Type escape sequence to abort. > Sending 5, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 202.161.128.202, > timeout is 2 seconds: > ! > Success rate is 100 percent (5/5), round-trip > min/avg/max = 580/583/584 ms > Router>trace 202.161.128.202 > > Type escape sequence to abort. > Tracing the route to 202.161.128.202 > > 1 202.161.128.202 572 msec 572 msec 580 msec > > > Why is this so and is there really a latency problem > and if so at which > point is latency at ? > > > thanks > > Jason > > > **NOTE: New CCNA/CCDA List has been formed. For more > information go to > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/Associates.html > _ > UPDATED Posting Guidelines: > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/guide.html > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: > http://www.groupstudy.com > Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Photos - 35mm Quality Prints, Now Get 15 Free! http://photos.yahoo.com/ **NOTE: New CCNA/CCDA List has been formed. For more information go to http://www.groupstudy.com/list/Associates.html _ UPDATED Posting Guidelines: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/guide.html FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
strange scenario
hi guys and gals One strange scenario that happens is that when I ping and traceroute to a destination 202.161.128.202 from internet : It shows high latency times between the last 2 hops : 312 ms12 ms12 ms 203.117.0.90 414 ms24 ms24 ms f0-0-r21.cyberway.com.sg [203.117.0.132] 513 ms15 ms14 ms 61.8.230.1 614 ms23 ms24 ms 61.8.254.91 7 119 ms 118 ms 120 ms 210.175.161.137 8 120 ms 119 ms 119 ms tyo-i1.tyo-core1.ntt.net [210.175.160.43] 9 222 ms 223 ms 221 ms sjc-i1.tyo-sjc1.ntt.net [210.175.160.98] 10 224 ms 225 ms 225 ms p1-1-2-3.r06.plalca01.us.bb.verio.net [129.250.1 6.21] 11 233 ms 232 ms 232 ms p4-1-0-0.r00.lsanca01.us.bb.verio.net [129.250.2 .114] 12 238 ms 237 ms 236 ms p1.att.r00.lsanca01.us.bb.verio.net [129.250.9.3 4] 13 240 ms 239 ms 239 ms gbr3-p50.la2ca.ip.att.net [12.123.28.130] 14 226 ms 226 ms 227 ms gbr4-p20.sffca.ip.att.net [12.122.2.69] 15 234 ms 234 ms 234 ms gbr2-p100.sffca.ip.att.net [12.122.1.190] 16 236 ms 234 ms 234 ms gar1-p370.sffca.ip.att.net [12.123.13.61] 17 290 ms 291 ms 291 ms 12.123.195.21 18 292 ms 293 ms 291 ms 12.125.94.10 19 277 ms 279 ms 278 ms 202.161.130.21 20 861 ms 861 ms 861 ms 202.161.128.202 Trace complete. Pinging 202.161.128.202 with 32 bytes of data: Reply from 202.161.128.202: bytes=32 time=856ms TTL=238 Reply from 202.161.128.202: bytes=32 time=854ms TTL=238 Reply from 202.161.128.202: bytes=32 time=854ms TTL=238 Reply from 202.161.128.202: bytes=32 time=853ms TTL=238 However when I do a ping and traceroute on my second last router it shows healthy ping times between this router and the destination Router>ping 202.161.128.202 Type escape sequence to abort. Sending 5, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 202.161.128.202, timeout is 2 seconds: ! Success rate is 100 percent (5/5), round-trip min/avg/max = 580/583/584 ms Router>trace 202.161.128.202 Type escape sequence to abort. Tracing the route to 202.161.128.202 1 202.161.128.202 572 msec 572 msec 580 msec Why is this so and is there really a latency problem and if so at which point is latency at ? thanks Jason **NOTE: New CCNA/CCDA List has been formed. For more information go to http://www.groupstudy.com/list/Associates.html _ UPDATED Posting Guidelines: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/guide.html FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
