Re: Router appears in tracert but can't ping?
On 17 Jun 2003 at 22:02, Russell Coker wrote: > On Tue, 17 Jun 2003 21:27, Stefan Neufeind wrote: > > What I'm looking for is a possibility to see if this router (that > > denies ping- packets) is still available? I have Nagios running and > > normally it monitors hosts via ping. So I need a replacement that > > would tell me if this router on the way to a server is reachable. I > > want to test the whole path to see where an error occured. Well, is > > it possible to "simulate" traceroute-like packets? What would you do > > to achive this? > > Pinging a machine that is beyond the router should be a strong > indication that the router is still functioning. ;) Well but you don't know if the machine behind is "dead" :-) I need to ping the last router in front of a machine. So incase the machine fails I can see if the backbone-router is still alive.
Re: Router appears in tracert but can't ping?
On 17 Jun 2003 at 22:02, Russell Coker wrote: > On Tue, 17 Jun 2003 21:27, Stefan Neufeind wrote: > > What I'm looking for is a possibility to see if this router (that > > denies ping- packets) is still available? I have Nagios running and > > normally it monitors hosts via ping. So I need a replacement that > > would tell me if this router on the way to a server is reachable. I > > want to test the whole path to see where an error occured. Well, is > > it possible to "simulate" traceroute-like packets? What would you do > > to achive this? > > Pinging a machine that is beyond the router should be a strong > indication that the router is still functioning. ;) Well but you don't know if the machine behind is "dead" :-) I need to ping the last router in front of a machine. So incase the machine fails I can see if the backbone-router is still alive. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Router appears in tracert but can't ping?
hi just a small draft to start if you have web server installed :)
#!/usr/bin/perl
#
my $host="http://www.myhost.net";;
my $gsm='12343';
my $emaildomain='partner-site.com';
my $emailbox='emergency';
my $gsm_carrier='your_mobile_suffix.com';
#
use LWP::Simple;
if(!head($host)){
$gsm_email = $gsm.'@'.$gsm_carrier;
$to_email=$emailbox.'@'.$emaildomain;
$from_email='guard@'.$emaildomain;
open MAIL, "| /usr/sbin/sendmail -t -i" or die "Can't init sendmail : $!";
print MAIL "To: $gsm_email\n";
print MAIL "From: $from_email\n";
print MAIL "Subject: Website Failure. Host: $host!\n";
print MAIL "Could NOT connect to $host\n";
close MAIL;
open MAIL, "| /usr/sbin/sendmail -t -i" or die "Can't init sendmail : $!";
print MAIL "To: $to_email\n";
print MAIL "From: $from_email\n";
print MAIL "Subject: Website Failure. Host: $host!\n";
print MAIL "Could NOT connect to $host\n";
close MAIL;
}
Kind regards,
Peter Zyumbilev
Web Developer & Administrator
BIVOL BULGARIA
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
web: http://www.bivol.net <http://www.bivol.net>
tel.: +359 88 966940
> -Original Message-
> From: Rico -mc- Gloeckner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2003 4:01 PM
> To: Stefan Neufeind
> Cc: debian-isp@lists.debian.org; Russell Coker
> Subject: Re: Router appears in tracert but can't ping?
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 17, 2003 at 01:27:16PM +0200, Stefan Neufeind wrote:
> > hosts via ping. So I need a replacement that would tell me if
> this router on
> > the way to a server is reachable. I want to test the whole path
> to see where an
> > error occured. Well, is it possible to "simulate"
> traceroute-like packets? What
> > would you do to achive this?
>
> write a small perl script which execs traceroute and parses traceroute
> data.
>
> shouldnt be too hard.
> --
> | Rico -mc- Gloeckner | mv ~/.signature `finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] |
> | Encrypted Mails preferred: 1024D/61F05B8C |
> | 3D67 D42F 2D50 4B68 1D62 E999 EFCB CDFF 61F0 5B8C |
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
RE: Router appears in tracert but can't ping?
hi just a small draft to start if you have web server installed :)
#!/usr/bin/perl
#
my $host="http://www.myhost.net";;
my $gsm='12343';
my $emaildomain='partner-site.com';
my $emailbox='emergency';
my $gsm_carrier='your_mobile_suffix.com';
#
use LWP::Simple;
if(!head($host)){
$gsm_email = $gsm.'@'.$gsm_carrier;
$to_email=$emailbox.'@'.$emaildomain;
$from_email='guard@'.$emaildomain;
open MAIL, "| /usr/sbin/sendmail -t -i" or die "Can't init sendmail : $!";
print MAIL "To: $gsm_email\n";
print MAIL "From: $from_email\n";
print MAIL "Subject: Website Failure. Host: $host!\n";
print MAIL "Could NOT connect to $host\n";
close MAIL;
open MAIL, "| /usr/sbin/sendmail -t -i" or die "Can't init sendmail : $!";
print MAIL "To: $to_email\n";
print MAIL "From: $from_email\n";
print MAIL "Subject: Website Failure. Host: $host!\n";
print MAIL "Could NOT connect to $host\n";
close MAIL;
}
Kind regards,
Peter Zyumbilev
Web Developer & Administrator
BIVOL BULGARIA
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
web: http://www.bivol.net <http://www.bivol.net>
tel.: +359 88 966940
> -----Original Message-
> From: Rico -mc- Gloeckner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2003 4:01 PM
> To: Stefan Neufeind
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Russell Coker
> Subject: Re: Router appears in tracert but can't ping?
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 17, 2003 at 01:27:16PM +0200, Stefan Neufeind wrote:
> > hosts via ping. So I need a replacement that would tell me if
> this router on
> > the way to a server is reachable. I want to test the whole path
> to see where an
> > error occured. Well, is it possible to "simulate"
> traceroute-like packets? What
> > would you do to achive this?
>
> write a small perl script which execs traceroute and parses traceroute
> data.
>
> shouldnt be too hard.
> --
> | Rico -mc- Gloeckner | mv ~/.signature `finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] |
> | Encrypted Mails preferred: 1024D/61F05B8C |
> | 3D67 D42F 2D50 4B68 1D62 E999 EFCB CDFF 61F0 5B8C |
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Router appears in tracert but can't ping?
On Tue, Jun 17, 2003 at 01:27:16PM +0200, Stefan Neufeind wrote: > hosts via ping. So I need a replacement that would tell me if this router on > the way to a server is reachable. I want to test the whole path to see where > an > error occured. Well, is it possible to "simulate" traceroute-like packets? > What > would you do to achive this? write a small perl script which execs traceroute and parses traceroute data. shouldnt be too hard. -- | Rico -mc- Gloeckner | mv ~/.signature `finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | Encrypted Mails preferred: 1024D/61F05B8C | | 3D67 D42F 2D50 4B68 1D62 E999 EFCB CDFF 61F0 5B8C |
Re: Router appears in tracert but can't ping?
On Tue, 17 Jun 2003 21:27, Stefan Neufeind wrote: > What I'm looking for is a possibility to see if this router (that denies > ping- packets) is still available? I have Nagios running and normally it > monitors hosts via ping. So I need a replacement that would tell me if this > router on the way to a server is reachable. I want to test the whole path > to see where an error occured. Well, is it possible to "simulate" > traceroute-like packets? What would you do to achive this? Pinging a machine that is beyond the router should be a strong indication that the router is still functioning. ;) If you want to specifically ping it then lft may do the job, set it to a minimum ttl that matches the router. It doesn't seem possible to specify a maximum count however. -- http://www.coker.com.au/selinux/ My NSA Security Enhanced Linux packages http://www.coker.com.au/bonnie++/ Bonnie++ hard drive benchmark http://www.coker.com.au/postal/Postal SMTP/POP benchmark http://www.coker.com.au/~russell/ My home page
Re: Router appears in tracert but can't ping?
On Tue, 17 Jun 2003 at 10:15:49, Russell Coker wrote: > On Tue, 17 Jun 2003 16:05, Stefan Neufeind wrote: > > both tracert and ping use ICMP. So did they just block some kind of > > ICMP-message (ping) for this router? How could I solve this problem? > > Your message was not clear, but it seems that you can see the router on a > traceroute but can't ping it. > > Ping sends ICMP-ECHO packets and solicits a direct response. traceroute > sends > an ICMP-ECHO or a UDP packet destined for some machine beyond the router and > > the router sends back an ICMP time-exceeded if it's hop count has expired. > Configuring a router to not respond to any packets addressed to itself is not > > uncommon, but having it send ICMP messages about packets addressed to other > machines that it can't deliver is expected. > > For this reason it's not uncommon to see traceroute show 10.x.x.x or > 192.168.x.x addresses (which are obviously not pingable). > > I'm not sure how the Windows program tracert compares in functionality to > traceroute. What I'm looking for is a possibility to see if this router (that denies ping- packets) is still available? I have Nagios running and normally it monitors hosts via ping. So I need a replacement that would tell me if this router on the way to a server is reachable. I want to test the whole path to see where an error occured. Well, is it possible to "simulate" traceroute-like packets? What would you do to achive this? Stefan
Re: Router appears in tracert but can't ping?
On Tue, Jun 17, 2003 at 01:27:16PM +0200, Stefan Neufeind wrote: > hosts via ping. So I need a replacement that would tell me if this router on > the way to a server is reachable. I want to test the whole path to see where an > error occured. Well, is it possible to "simulate" traceroute-like packets? What > would you do to achive this? write a small perl script which execs traceroute and parses traceroute data. shouldnt be too hard. -- | Rico -mc- Gloeckner | mv ~/.signature `finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | Encrypted Mails preferred: 1024D/61F05B8C | | 3D67 D42F 2D50 4B68 1D62 E999 EFCB CDFF 61F0 5B8C | -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Router appears in tracert but can't ping?
On Tue, 17 Jun 2003 21:27, Stefan Neufeind wrote: > What I'm looking for is a possibility to see if this router (that denies > ping- packets) is still available? I have Nagios running and normally it > monitors hosts via ping. So I need a replacement that would tell me if this > router on the way to a server is reachable. I want to test the whole path > to see where an error occured. Well, is it possible to "simulate" > traceroute-like packets? What would you do to achive this? Pinging a machine that is beyond the router should be a strong indication that the router is still functioning. ;) If you want to specifically ping it then lft may do the job, set it to a minimum ttl that matches the router. It doesn't seem possible to specify a maximum count however. -- http://www.coker.com.au/selinux/ My NSA Security Enhanced Linux packages http://www.coker.com.au/bonnie++/ Bonnie++ hard drive benchmark http://www.coker.com.au/postal/Postal SMTP/POP benchmark http://www.coker.com.au/~russell/ My home page -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Router appears in tracert but can't ping?
On Tue, 17 Jun 2003 at 10:15:49, Russell Coker wrote: > On Tue, 17 Jun 2003 16:05, Stefan Neufeind wrote: > > both tracert and ping use ICMP. So did they just block some kind of > > ICMP-message (ping) for this router? How could I solve this problem? > > Your message was not clear, but it seems that you can see the router on a > traceroute but can't ping it. > > Ping sends ICMP-ECHO packets and solicits a direct response. traceroute > sends > an ICMP-ECHO or a UDP packet destined for some machine beyond the router and > > the router sends back an ICMP time-exceeded if it's hop count has expired. > Configuring a router to not respond to any packets addressed to itself is not > > uncommon, but having it send ICMP messages about packets addressed to other > machines that it can't deliver is expected. > > For this reason it's not uncommon to see traceroute show 10.x.x.x or > 192.168.x.x addresses (which are obviously not pingable). > > I'm not sure how the Windows program tracert compares in functionality to > traceroute. What I'm looking for is a possibility to see if this router (that denies ping- packets) is still available? I have Nagios running and normally it monitors hosts via ping. So I need a replacement that would tell me if this router on the way to a server is reachable. I want to test the whole path to see where an error occured. Well, is it possible to "simulate" traceroute-like packets? What would you do to achive this? Stefan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Router appears in tracert but can't ping?
On Tue, 17 Jun 2003 16:05, Stefan Neufeind wrote: > both tracert and ping use ICMP. So did they just block some kind of > ICMP-message (ping) for this router? How could I solve this problem? Your message was not clear, but it seems that you can see the router on a traceroute but can't ping it. Ping sends ICMP-ECHO packets and solicits a direct response. traceroute sends an ICMP-ECHO or a UDP packet destined for some machine beyond the router and the router sends back an ICMP time-exceeded if it's hop count has expired. Configuring a router to not respond to any packets addressed to itself is not uncommon, but having it send ICMP messages about packets addressed to other machines that it can't deliver is expected. For this reason it's not uncommon to see traceroute show 10.x.x.x or 192.168.x.x addresses (which are obviously not pingable). I'm not sure how the Windows program tracert compares in functionality to traceroute. -- http://www.coker.com.au/selinux/ My NSA Security Enhanced Linux packages http://www.coker.com.au/bonnie++/ Bonnie++ hard drive benchmark http://www.coker.com.au/postal/Postal SMTP/POP benchmark http://www.coker.com.au/~russell/ My home page
Router appears in tracert but can't ping?
Hi, both tracert and ping use ICMP. So did they just block some kind of ICMP-message (ping) for this router? How could I solve this problem? I need to check if the route to this router is alive - namely if the router is up. Can I trick this into working by choosing a TOS for ping manually? Stefan
Re: Router appears in tracert but can't ping?
On Tue, 17 Jun 2003 16:05, Stefan Neufeind wrote: > both tracert and ping use ICMP. So did they just block some kind of > ICMP-message (ping) for this router? How could I solve this problem? Your message was not clear, but it seems that you can see the router on a traceroute but can't ping it. Ping sends ICMP-ECHO packets and solicits a direct response. traceroute sends an ICMP-ECHO or a UDP packet destined for some machine beyond the router and the router sends back an ICMP time-exceeded if it's hop count has expired. Configuring a router to not respond to any packets addressed to itself is not uncommon, but having it send ICMP messages about packets addressed to other machines that it can't deliver is expected. For this reason it's not uncommon to see traceroute show 10.x.x.x or 192.168.x.x addresses (which are obviously not pingable). I'm not sure how the Windows program tracert compares in functionality to traceroute. -- http://www.coker.com.au/selinux/ My NSA Security Enhanced Linux packages http://www.coker.com.au/bonnie++/ Bonnie++ hard drive benchmark http://www.coker.com.au/postal/Postal SMTP/POP benchmark http://www.coker.com.au/~russell/ My home page -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Router appears in tracert but can't ping?
Hi, both tracert and ping use ICMP. So did they just block some kind of ICMP-message (ping) for this router? How could I solve this problem? I need to check if the route to this router is alive - namely if the router is up. Can I trick this into working by choosing a TOS for ping manually? Stefan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ping message
On Thu, Aug 09, 2001 at 11:12:11AM -0700, Jeremy C. Reed wrote: > On Thu, 9 Aug 2001, Christian Kurz wrote: > > > If you are really doing professional services then you should know how > > to tell your mailer to only send a mail to the list or either insert an > > appropriate comment telling me, that you also send me a unnessary copy > > to my private address. > > This is always a person-by-person opinion. Some people don't want copies > (because they assume that others know that they always read the list in a > timely matter), some want copies (to make sure they read it), some want > comments that tell them that it is also copied ... Since I now know your > preference, I'll try to remember. For all debian lists, the convention is "reply to the list only unless the poster requests otherwise". It's somewhere on www.debian.org ... -- Nathan Norman - Staff Engineer | A good plan today is better Micromuse Ltd. | than a perfect plan tomorrow. mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- Patton PGP signature
Re: Ping message
On Thu, 9 Aug 2001, Christian Kurz wrote: > If you are really doing professional services then you should know how > to tell your mailer to only send a mail to the list or either insert an > appropriate comment telling me, that you also send me a unnessary copy > to my private address. This is always a person-by-person opinion. Some people don't want copies (because they assume that others know that they always read the list in a timely matter), some want copies (to make sure they read it), some want comments that tell them that it is also copied ... Since I now know your preference, I'll try to remember. > I don't know which source you are looking at, but I'm looking at the > source for iputils from ftp://ftp.inr.ac.ru/ip-routing/. If you look > there at the functions pr_pack and main you'll notice that pr_pack is > called with a variable containing the received_time which is as far as I > understand calculated from the time (gettimeofday). And this time value I may have been looking at different code. If I recall correctly it only used gettimeofday() if it was using the old behaviour (as mentioned in the manual page). I was looking at iputils_20001110.orig.tar.gz as downloaded from debian's site. The manual page contains "iputils-ss990107". > > I believe -U uses different functionality (old feature) and > > bypasses this problem. > > -U does what? The version of ping that I use here doesn't know about > that switch. As mentioned in another email by Fernando, his ping does have that feature. I guess you are using a different ping. (And my ping doesn't have that feature either.) -U Print true user-to-user latency (the old behaviour). I don't use that ping. I have came across well over 20 messages about this problem. Some of these messages indicated the upgrading to a newer kernel, or using "-U", or using an older ping fixed their problem. Feel free to ask the developer pekkas @ netcore.fi what he means by "SIOCGSTAMP/SO_TIMESTAMP are sensitive to bug in kernel" and if this applies to this. Jeremy C. Reed echo '9,J8HD,fDGG8B@?:536FC5=8@I;C5?@H5B0D@5GBIELD54DL>@8L?:5GDEJ8LDG1' |\ sed ss,s50EBsg | tr 0-M 'p.wBt SgiIlxmLhan:o,erDsduv/cyP' -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ping message
If you are really doing professional services then you should know how to tell your mailer to only send a mail to the list or either insert an appropriate comment telling me, that you also send me a unnessary copy to my private address. On 01-08-08 Jeremy C. Reed wrote: > On Wed, 8 Aug 2001, Christian Kurz wrote: > > > > Warning: time of day goes back, taking countermeasures. > > > I believe your ping command is using features only available in a newer > > > kernel. Maybe upgrade your kernel (2.4.4?) or see if your ping has a -U > > > switch to ignore this. > > What should a feature of a kernel has to do with a message from ping > > complaining about problems with the time measurement? > > I don't understand the source of ping completely, but I would say that > > this message is a hint to a problem with the clock. This message is > I am pretty sure it is not the return value form gettimeofday() -- it is > the information returned via ioctl() for a SIOCGSTAM (receive timestamp of > the last packet passed to the user) or SO_TIMESTAMP request (timestamp of > incoming datagrams). I don't know which source you are looking at, but I'm looking at the source for iputils from ftp://ftp.inr.ac.ru/ip-routing/. If you look there at the functions pr_pack and main you'll notice that pr_pack is called with a variable containing the received_time which is as far as I understand calculated from the time (gettimeofday). And this time value is then used inside pr_pack to calculate the exact time for the trip. So only when the triptime will be less then 0, ping will print the message about the timining going back. If you are not agreeing with this, then please tell us, which source code you are looking at and give some hints to the code like I did now. > I believe -U uses different functionality (old feature) and > bypasses this problem. -U does what? The version of ping that I use here doesn't know about that switch. Christian -- Debian Developer (http://www.debian.org) 1024/26CC7853 31E6 A8CA 68FC 284F 7D16 63EC A9E6 67FF 26CC 7853 PGP signature
Re: Ping message
On Thu, 9 Aug 2001, Fernando Casas wrote: > If I use the -U argument, then the message is gone. > > And there are no error (or like error) messages. > > any ideas? Try upgrading your kernel (like I mentioned in a previous mail) or try downgrading your ping. > > > > > Warning: time of day goes back, taking countermeasures. > > > > > > > I believe your ping command is using features only available in a > newer > > > > kernel. Maybe upgrade your kernel (2.4.4?) or see if your ping has > a -U > > > > switch to ignore this. > > > > > > What should a feature of a kernel has to do with a message from ping > > > complaining about problems with the time measurement? > > > > > > I don't understand the source of ping completely, but I would say > that > > > this message is a hint to a problem with the clock. This message is > > > >I am pretty sure it is not the return value form gettimeofday() -- it is > >the information returned via ioctl() for a SIOCGSTAM (receive timestamp > of > >the last packet passed to the user) or SO_TIMESTAMP request (timestamp > of > >incoming datagrams). > > > >I believe -U uses different functionality (old feature) and > >bypasses this problem. > > > >From looking at postings on the web, it appears to be a kernel bug. > > > >Some info at http://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37485 Jeremy C. Reed echo '9,J8HD,fDGG8B@?:536FC5=8@I;C5?@H5B0D@5GBIELD54DL>@8L?:5GDEJ8LDG1' |\ sed ss,s50EBsg | tr 0-M 'p.wBt SgiIlxmLhan:o,erDsduv/cyP' -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ping message
If I use the -U argument, then the message is gone. And there are no error (or like error) messages. any ideas? Thanks in advance. >From: "Jeremy C. Reed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: Christian Kurz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >CC: DEBIAN-ISP <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: Re: Ping message >Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2001 15:59:44 -0700 (PDT) > >On Wed, 8 Aug 2001, Christian Kurz wrote: > > > > > Warning: time of day goes back, taking countermeasures. > > > > > I believe your ping command is using features only available in a newer > > > kernel. Maybe upgrade your kernel (2.4.4?) or see if your ping has a -U > > > switch to ignore this. > > > > What should a feature of a kernel has to do with a message from ping > > complaining about problems with the time measurement? > > > > I don't understand the source of ping completely, but I would say that > > this message is a hint to a problem with the clock. This message is > >I am pretty sure it is not the return value form gettimeofday() -- it is >the information returned via ioctl() for a SIOCGSTAM (receive timestamp of >the last packet passed to the user) or SO_TIMESTAMP request (timestamp of >incoming datagrams). > >I believe -U uses different functionality (old feature) and >bypasses this problem. > >From looking at postings on the web, it appears to be a kernel bug. > >Some info at http://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37485 > > Jeremy C. Reed >echo '9,J8HD,fDGG8B@?:536FC5=8@I;C5?@H5B0D@5GBIELD54DL>@8L?:5GDEJ8LDG1' |\ >sed ss,s50EBsg | tr 0-M 'p.wBt SgiIlxmLhan:o,erDsduv/cyP' > > > >-- >To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] >with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ping message
On Wed, 8 Aug 2001, Christian Kurz wrote: > > > Warning: time of day goes back, taking countermeasures. > > > I believe your ping command is using features only available in a newer > > kernel. Maybe upgrade your kernel (2.4.4?) or see if your ping has a -U > > switch to ignore this. > > What should a feature of a kernel has to do with a message from ping > complaining about problems with the time measurement? > > I don't understand the source of ping completely, but I would say that > this message is a hint to a problem with the clock. This message is I am pretty sure it is not the return value form gettimeofday() -- it is the information returned via ioctl() for a SIOCGSTAM (receive timestamp of the last packet passed to the user) or SO_TIMESTAMP request (timestamp of incoming datagrams). I believe -U uses different functionality (old feature) and bypasses this problem. >From looking at postings on the web, it appears to be a kernel bug. Some info at http://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37485 Jeremy C. Reed echo '9,J8HD,fDGG8B@?:536FC5=8@I;C5?@H5B0D@5GBIELD54DL>@8L?:5GDEJ8LDG1' |\ sed ss,s50EBsg | tr 0-M 'p.wBt SgiIlxmLhan:o,erDsduv/cyP' -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ping message
On 01-08-08 Jeremy C. Reed wrote: > On Wed, 8 Aug 2001, Fernando Casas wrote: > > I´m getting this message every time i ping a machine on the LAN. And > > just on the LAN. > > Warning: time of day goes back, taking countermeasures. > I believe your ping command is using features only available in a newer > kernel. Maybe upgrade your kernel (2.4.4?) or see if your ping has a -U > switch to ignore this. What should a feature of a kernel has to do with a message from ping complaining about problems with the time measurement? I don't understand the source of ping completely, but I would say that this message is a hint to a problem with the clock. This message is exactly then printed then the time that ping calculated for the trip of an icmp package is less then 0, which means, that there's something screwed on the box. Christian -- Debian Developer (http://www.debian.org) 1024/26CC7853 31E6 A8CA 68FC 284F 7D16 63EC A9E6 67FF 26CC 7853 PGP signature
Re: Ping message
On Wed, 8 Aug 2001, Fernando Casas wrote: > I´m getting this message every time i ping a machine on the LAN. And > just on the LAN. > > Warning: time of day goes back, taking countermeasures. I believe your ping command is using features only available in a newer kernel. Maybe upgrade your kernel (2.4.4?) or see if your ping has a -U switch to ignore this. Which ping? iputils-ping? (I think it is iputils, because of this message.) netkit-ping? What version? Jeremy C. Reed echo '9,J8HD,fDGG8B@?:536FC5=8@I;C5?@H5B0D@5GBIELD54DL>@8L?:5GDEJ8LDG1' |\ sed ss,s50EBsg | tr 0-M 'p.wBt SgiIlxmLhan:o,erDsduv/cyP' -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ping message
I´m getting this message every time i ping a machine on the LAN. And just on the LAN. Warning: time of day goes back, taking countermeasures. Any ideas Thanks in advance. ** Fernando Casas LAN-WAN-Internet-Seguridad Soporte GNU/Linux celular: 155-558544email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.secdata.com.ar***
Re: Ping - what the hell ?
On Sun, 3 Jun 2001, Chris Wagner wrote: > I'm sorry, but ROFLMAO!!! It's sad and (sometimes) funny, that I have to work with those people ;) We are just changing our admin. He was a real mistake :| Now it's all funny for me, but It costed me time, lots of time... > >It' solved, there were 2 reasons. > > Core dumps - hmmm, our admin borken the kernel by incorrectly patching > >it. > > Ping times - some stupid guy inserted two different CPUs PII 400 and 450. > > It's a miracle it was working all together... -=Czaj-nick=-
Re: Ping - what the hell ?
On Sun, 3 Jun 2001, Chris Wagner wrote: > I'm sorry, but ROFLMAO!!! It's sad and (sometimes) funny, that I have to work with those people ;) We are just changing our admin. He was a real mistake :| Now it's all funny for me, but It costed me time, lots of time... > >It' solved, there were 2 reasons. > > Core dumps - hmmm, our admin borken the kernel by incorrectly patching > >it. > > Ping times - some stupid guy inserted two different CPUs PII 400 and 450. > > It's a miracle it was working all together... -=Czaj-nick=- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ping - what the hell ?
I'm sorry, but ROFLMAO!!! At 05:18 PM 6/3/01 +0200, Przemyslaw Wegrzyn wrote: > > >On Sat, 2 Jun 2001, Craig Sanders wrote: > >> On Wed, May 30, 2001 at 09:41:54PM +0200, Przemyslaw Wegrzyn wrote: >> > Anyway, my problem seems to be hardware: >> > >> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ more /proc/misc >> > Segmentation fault >> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ >> >> some possible causes: >> >> 1. bad memory - most likely. >> >> 2. bad swap partition (or bad disk controller causing the swap partition to >> not work) >> >> 3. other bad hardware >> >> 4. bad libc6 or other library - not very likely. >> > >It' solved, there were 2 reasons. > Core dumps - hmmm, our admin borken the kernel by incorrectly patching >it. > Ping times - some stupid guy inserted two different CPUs PII 400 and 450. > It's a miracle it was working all together... > >-=Czaj-nick=- > > > >-- >To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] >with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > ---==--- ___/``\___ 0100
Re: Ping - what the hell ?
I'm sorry, but ROFLMAO!!! At 05:18 PM 6/3/01 +0200, Przemyslaw Wegrzyn wrote: > > >On Sat, 2 Jun 2001, Craig Sanders wrote: > >> On Wed, May 30, 2001 at 09:41:54PM +0200, Przemyslaw Wegrzyn wrote: >> > Anyway, my problem seems to be hardware: >> > >> > czajnik@earth:~$ more /proc/misc >> > Segmentation fault >> > czajnik@earth:~$ >> >> some possible causes: >> >> 1. bad memory - most likely. >> >> 2. bad swap partition (or bad disk controller causing the swap partition to >> not work) >> >> 3. other bad hardware >> >> 4. bad libc6 or other library - not very likely. >> > >It' solved, there were 2 reasons. > Core dumps - hmmm, our admin borken the kernel by incorrectly patching >it. > Ping times - some stupid guy inserted two different CPUs PII 400 and 450. > It's a miracle it was working all together... > >-=Czaj-nick=- > > > >-- >To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] >with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > ---==--- ___/``\___ 0100 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ping - what the hell ?
On Sat, 2 Jun 2001, Craig Sanders wrote: > On Wed, May 30, 2001 at 09:41:54PM +0200, Przemyslaw Wegrzyn wrote: > > Anyway, my problem seems to be hardware: > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ more /proc/misc > > Segmentation fault > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ > > some possible causes: > > 1. bad memory - most likely. > > 2. bad swap partition (or bad disk controller causing the swap partition to > not work) > > 3. other bad hardware > > 4. bad libc6 or other library - not very likely. > It' solved, there were 2 reasons. Core dumps - hmmm, our admin borken the kernel by incorrectly patching it. Ping times - some stupid guy inserted two different CPUs PII 400 and 450. It's a miracle it was working all together... -=Czaj-nick=-
Re: Ping - what the hell ?
On Sat, 2 Jun 2001, Craig Sanders wrote: > On Wed, May 30, 2001 at 09:41:54PM +0200, Przemyslaw Wegrzyn wrote: > > Anyway, my problem seems to be hardware: > > > > czajnik@earth:~$ more /proc/misc > > Segmentation fault > > czajnik@earth:~$ > > some possible causes: > > 1. bad memory - most likely. > > 2. bad swap partition (or bad disk controller causing the swap partition to > not work) > > 3. other bad hardware > > 4. bad libc6 or other library - not very likely. > It' solved, there were 2 reasons. Core dumps - hmmm, our admin borken the kernel by incorrectly patching it. Ping times - some stupid guy inserted two different CPUs PII 400 and 450. It's a miracle it was working all together... -=Czaj-nick=- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ping - what the hell ?
On Wed, May 30, 2001 at 09:41:54PM +0200, Przemyslaw Wegrzyn wrote: > Anyway, my problem seems to be hardware: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ more /proc/misc > Segmentation fault > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ some possible causes: 1. bad memory - most likely. 2. bad swap partition (or bad disk controller causing the swap partition to not work) 3. other bad hardware 4. bad libc6 or other library - not very likely. craig -- craig sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Fabricati Diem, PVNC. -- motto of the Ankh-Morpork City Watch
Re: Ping - what the hell ?
On Wed, May 30, 2001 at 08:47:38PM +0200, Przemyslaw Wegrzyn wrote: > On Wed, 30 May 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > Aren't you traveling several rfc1149 links? > > > > http://www.blug.linux.no/rfc1149/pinglogg.txt > > ?!? What do U mean ? he means you need to give your pigeons some time to rest between packets. craig -- craig sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Fabricati Diem, PVNC. -- motto of the Ankh-Morpork City Watch
Re: Ping - what the hell ?
On Wed, May 30, 2001 at 09:41:54PM +0200, Przemyslaw Wegrzyn wrote: > Anyway, my problem seems to be hardware: > > czajnik@earth:~$ more /proc/misc > Segmentation fault > czajnik@earth:~$ some possible causes: 1. bad memory - most likely. 2. bad swap partition (or bad disk controller causing the swap partition to not work) 3. other bad hardware 4. bad libc6 or other library - not very likely. craig -- craig sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Fabricati Diem, PVNC. -- motto of the Ankh-Morpork City Watch -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ping - what the hell ?
On Wed, May 30, 2001 at 08:47:38PM +0200, Przemyslaw Wegrzyn wrote: > On Wed, 30 May 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > Aren't you traveling several rfc1149 links? > > > > http://www.blug.linux.no/rfc1149/pinglogg.txt > > ?!? What do U mean ? he means you need to give your pigeons some time to rest between packets. craig -- craig sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Fabricati Diem, PVNC. -- motto of the Ankh-Morpork City Watch -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ping - what the hell ?
On Wed, 30 May 2001, Nathan E Norman wrote: > On Wed, May 30, 2001 at 08:47:38PM +0200, Przemyslaw Wegrzyn wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, 30 May 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > > Aren't you traveling several rfc1149 links? > > > > > > http://www.blug.linux.no/rfc1149/pinglogg.txt > > > > ?!? What do U mean ? > > It was a joke ... rfc 1149 is IP over avian carriers (birds) Ooooh, yeah, I didn't remember the rfc number, but I know this protocol : It's nice :) Anyway, my problem seems to be hardware: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ more /proc/misc Segmentation fault [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ -=Czaj-nick=-
Re: Ping - what the hell ?
On Wed, May 30, 2001 at 08:47:38PM +0200, Przemyslaw Wegrzyn wrote: > > > On Wed, 30 May 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > Aren't you traveling several rfc1149 links? > > > > http://www.blug.linux.no/rfc1149/pinglogg.txt > > ?!? What do U mean ? It was a joke ... rfc 1149 is IP over avian carriers (birds) -- Nathan Norman - Staff Engineer | A good plan today is better Micromuse Ltd. | than a perfect plan tomorrow. mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- Patton pgpH2mBYhmXBg.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Ping - what the hell ?
On Wed, 30 May 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Aren't you traveling several rfc1149 links? > > http://www.blug.linux.no/rfc1149/pinglogg.txt ?!? What do U mean ? isn't the ping time measured by storing system time the ICMP ECHO was sent, and comparng it to the system time the reply arrived ? I get it even when pinging my Cisco 1601 router, which is connected directly (I don't care 3com SSII 1100 now) -=Czaj-nick=- > On Wed, May 30, 2001 at 03:24:39PM +0200, Przemyslaw Wegrzyn wrote: > > > > Look at this: > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ ping 156.17.209.1 > > PING 156.17.209.1 (156.17.209.1): 56 data bytes > > 64 bytes from 156.17.209.1: icmp_seq=0 ttl=247 time=5427.7 ms > > 64 bytes from 156.17.209.1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=247 time=23.2 ms > > 64 bytes from 156.17.209.1: icmp_seq=2 ttl=247 time=429492829.5 ms > > ^^^ > > 64 bytes from 156.17.209.1: icmp_seq=3 ttl=247 time=429492907.1 ms > > 64 bytes from 156.17.209.1: icmp_seq=4 ttl=247 time=16.5 ms > > 64 bytes from 156.17.209.1: icmp_seq=5 ttl=247 time=21.4 ms > > > > What the hell can it be ?!? Every ping comes back in few milisecounds... > > > > We've recently added second CPU to this machine, can it (failed CPU) be > > the reason ? Overall stability is good... > > > > -=Czaj-nick=- > > > > > > > > -- > > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- > HoraPe > --- > Horacio J. Peńa > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] >
Re: Ping - what the hell ?
Aren't you traveling several rfc1149 links? http://www.blug.linux.no/rfc1149/pinglogg.txt On Wed, May 30, 2001 at 03:24:39PM +0200, Przemyslaw Wegrzyn wrote: > > Look at this: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ ping 156.17.209.1 > PING 156.17.209.1 (156.17.209.1): 56 data bytes > 64 bytes from 156.17.209.1: icmp_seq=0 ttl=247 time=5427.7 ms > 64 bytes from 156.17.209.1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=247 time=23.2 ms > 64 bytes from 156.17.209.1: icmp_seq=2 ttl=247 time=429492829.5 ms > ^^^ > 64 bytes from 156.17.209.1: icmp_seq=3 ttl=247 time=429492907.1 ms > 64 bytes from 156.17.209.1: icmp_seq=4 ttl=247 time=16.5 ms > 64 bytes from 156.17.209.1: icmp_seq=5 ttl=247 time=21.4 ms > > What the hell can it be ?!? Every ping comes back in few milisecounds... > > We've recently added second CPU to this machine, can it (failed CPU) be > the reason ? Overall stability is good... > > -=Czaj-nick=- > > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- HoraPe --- Horacio J. Peña [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ping - what the hell ?
On Wed, 30 May 2001, Nathan E Norman wrote: > On Wed, May 30, 2001 at 08:47:38PM +0200, Przemyslaw Wegrzyn wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, 30 May 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > > Aren't you traveling several rfc1149 links? > > > > > > http://www.blug.linux.no/rfc1149/pinglogg.txt > > > > ?!? What do U mean ? > > It was a joke ... rfc 1149 is IP over avian carriers (birds) Ooooh, yeah, I didn't remember the rfc number, but I know this protocol : It's nice :) Anyway, my problem seems to be hardware: czajnik@earth:~$ more /proc/misc Segmentation fault czajnik@earth:~$ -=Czaj-nick=- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ping - what the hell ?
On Wed, May 30, 2001 at 08:47:38PM +0200, Przemyslaw Wegrzyn wrote: > > > On Wed, 30 May 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > Aren't you traveling several rfc1149 links? > > > > http://www.blug.linux.no/rfc1149/pinglogg.txt > > ?!? What do U mean ? It was a joke ... rfc 1149 is IP over avian carriers (birds) -- Nathan Norman - Staff Engineer | A good plan today is better Micromuse Ltd. | than a perfect plan tomorrow. mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- Patton PGP signature
Re: Ping - what the hell ?
On Wed, 30 May 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Aren't you traveling several rfc1149 links? > > http://www.blug.linux.no/rfc1149/pinglogg.txt ?!? What do U mean ? isn't the ping time measured by storing system time the ICMP ECHO was sent, and comparng it to the system time the reply arrived ? I get it even when pinging my Cisco 1601 router, which is connected directly (I don't care 3com SSII 1100 now) -=Czaj-nick=- > On Wed, May 30, 2001 at 03:24:39PM +0200, Przemyslaw Wegrzyn wrote: > > > > Look at this: > > > > czajnik@earth:~$ ping 156.17.209.1 > > PING 156.17.209.1 (156.17.209.1): 56 data bytes > > 64 bytes from 156.17.209.1: icmp_seq=0 ttl=247 time=5427.7 ms > > 64 bytes from 156.17.209.1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=247 time=23.2 ms > > 64 bytes from 156.17.209.1: icmp_seq=2 ttl=247 time=429492829.5 ms > > ^^^ > > 64 bytes from 156.17.209.1: icmp_seq=3 ttl=247 time=429492907.1 ms > > 64 bytes from 156.17.209.1: icmp_seq=4 ttl=247 time=16.5 ms > > 64 bytes from 156.17.209.1: icmp_seq=5 ttl=247 time=21.4 ms > > > > What the hell can it be ?!? Every ping comes back in few milisecounds... > > > > We've recently added second CPU to this machine, can it (failed CPU) be > > the reason ? Overall stability is good... > > > > -=Czaj-nick=- > > > > > > > > -- > > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- > HoraPe > --- > Horacio J. Peńa > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ping - what the hell ?
On Wed, 30 May 2001, Ken Seefried wrote: > > I think that you can get this if you have an MP kernel compiled without > "Enhanced Real Time Clock" support. The default clock driver apparently > isn't MP-safe. Thx, I'll check it tomorrow :).
Re: Ping - what the hell ?
Aren't you traveling several rfc1149 links? http://www.blug.linux.no/rfc1149/pinglogg.txt On Wed, May 30, 2001 at 03:24:39PM +0200, Przemyslaw Wegrzyn wrote: > > Look at this: > > czajnik@earth:~$ ping 156.17.209.1 > PING 156.17.209.1 (156.17.209.1): 56 data bytes > 64 bytes from 156.17.209.1: icmp_seq=0 ttl=247 time=5427.7 ms > 64 bytes from 156.17.209.1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=247 time=23.2 ms > 64 bytes from 156.17.209.1: icmp_seq=2 ttl=247 time=429492829.5 ms > ^^^ > 64 bytes from 156.17.209.1: icmp_seq=3 ttl=247 time=429492907.1 ms > 64 bytes from 156.17.209.1: icmp_seq=4 ttl=247 time=16.5 ms > 64 bytes from 156.17.209.1: icmp_seq=5 ttl=247 time=21.4 ms > > What the hell can it be ?!? Every ping comes back in few milisecounds... > > We've recently added second CPU to this machine, can it (failed CPU) be > the reason ? Overall stability is good... > > -=Czaj-nick=- > > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- HoraPe --- Horacio J. Peña [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ping - what the hell ?
I think that you can get this if you have an MP kernel compiled without "Enhanced Real Time Clock" support. The default clock driver apparently isn't MP-safe. Ken Seefried, CISSP Przemyslaw Wegrzyn writes: Look at this: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ ping 156.17.209.1 PING 156.17.209.1 (156.17.209.1): 56 data bytes 64 bytes from 156.17.209.1: icmp_seq=0 ttl=247 time=5427.7 ms 64 bytes from 156.17.209.1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=247 time=23.2 ms 64 bytes from 156.17.209.1: icmp_seq=2 ttl=247 time=429492829.5 ms ^^^ 64 bytes from 156.17.209.1: icmp_seq=3 ttl=247 time=429492907.1 ms 64 bytes from 156.17.209.1: icmp_seq=4 ttl=247 time=16.5 ms 64 bytes from 156.17.209.1: icmp_seq=5 ttl=247 time=21.4 ms What the hell can it be ?!? Every ping comes back in few milisecounds... We've recently added second CPU to this machine, can it (failed CPU) be the reason ? Overall stability is good... -=Czaj-nick=-
Re: Ping - what the hell ?
On Wed, 30 May 2001, Ken Seefried wrote: > > I think that you can get this if you have an MP kernel compiled without > "Enhanced Real Time Clock" support. The default clock driver apparently > isn't MP-safe. Thx, I'll check it tomorrow :). -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ping - what the hell ?
Look at this: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ ping 156.17.209.1 PING 156.17.209.1 (156.17.209.1): 56 data bytes 64 bytes from 156.17.209.1: icmp_seq=0 ttl=247 time=5427.7 ms 64 bytes from 156.17.209.1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=247 time=23.2 ms 64 bytes from 156.17.209.1: icmp_seq=2 ttl=247 time=429492829.5 ms ^^^ 64 bytes from 156.17.209.1: icmp_seq=3 ttl=247 time=429492907.1 ms 64 bytes from 156.17.209.1: icmp_seq=4 ttl=247 time=16.5 ms 64 bytes from 156.17.209.1: icmp_seq=5 ttl=247 time=21.4 ms What the hell can it be ?!? Every ping comes back in few milisecounds... We've recently added second CPU to this machine, can it (failed CPU) be the reason ? Overall stability is good... -=Czaj-nick=-
Re: Ping - what the hell ?
I think that you can get this if you have an MP kernel compiled without "Enhanced Real Time Clock" support. The default clock driver apparently isn't MP-safe. Ken Seefried, CISSP Przemyslaw Wegrzyn writes: > > Look at this: > > czajnik@earth:~$ ping 156.17.209.1 > PING 156.17.209.1 (156.17.209.1): 56 data bytes > 64 bytes from 156.17.209.1: icmp_seq=0 ttl=247 time=5427.7 ms > 64 bytes from 156.17.209.1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=247 time=23.2 ms > 64 bytes from 156.17.209.1: icmp_seq=2 ttl=247 time=429492829.5 ms > ^^^ > 64 bytes from 156.17.209.1: icmp_seq=3 ttl=247 time=429492907.1 ms > 64 bytes from 156.17.209.1: icmp_seq=4 ttl=247 time=16.5 ms > 64 bytes from 156.17.209.1: icmp_seq=5 ttl=247 time=21.4 ms > > What the hell can it be ?!? Every ping comes back in few milisecounds... > > We've recently added second CPU to this machine, can it (failed CPU) be > the reason ? Overall stability is good... > > -=Czaj-nick=- > -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ping - what the hell ?
Look at this: czajnik@earth:~$ ping 156.17.209.1 PING 156.17.209.1 (156.17.209.1): 56 data bytes 64 bytes from 156.17.209.1: icmp_seq=0 ttl=247 time=5427.7 ms 64 bytes from 156.17.209.1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=247 time=23.2 ms 64 bytes from 156.17.209.1: icmp_seq=2 ttl=247 time=429492829.5 ms ^^^ 64 bytes from 156.17.209.1: icmp_seq=3 ttl=247 time=429492907.1 ms 64 bytes from 156.17.209.1: icmp_seq=4 ttl=247 time=16.5 ms 64 bytes from 156.17.209.1: icmp_seq=5 ttl=247 time=21.4 ms What the hell can it be ?!? Every ping comes back in few milisecounds... We've recently added second CPU to this machine, can it (failed CPU) be the reason ? Overall stability is good... -=Czaj-nick=- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: ping
On Thu, 21 Sep 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > /sbin/ipchains -I imput -p icmp -l ^ > On Thu, 21 Sep 2000, Jeremy L. Gaddis wrote: > > /sbin/ipchains -I input -p icmp -l ^ -- Martin Wheeler -StarTEXT - Glastonbury - BA6 9PH - England [1] [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.startext.co.uk/
RE: ping
On Thu, 21 Sep 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > /sbin/ipchains -I imput -p icmp -l ^ > On Thu, 21 Sep 2000, Jeremy L. Gaddis wrote: > > /sbin/ipchains -I input -p icmp -l ^ -- Martin Wheeler -StarTEXT - Glastonbury - BA6 9PH - England [1] [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.startext.co.uk/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ping
On Thu, 21 Sep 2000 at 21:46:01 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Hello All, > Is there a way to log incoming ICMP requests? What would have to be > wrapped in order to basically log all requests of the machine (pings in > particular) > > Thanks, > > D. Ghost > Package: ippl IP protocols logger ippl is a configurable IP protocols logger. It currently logs incoming ICMP messages, TCP connections and UDP datagrams. It is configured with Apache-like rules and has a built-in DNS cache. http://www.debian.org/Packages/stable/net/ippl.html Hope it helps. -- Tomasz Papszun SysAdm @ TP S.A. Lodz, Poland | And it's only [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.lodz.tpsa.pl/ | ones and zeros.
Re: ping
On Thu, 21 Sep 2000 at 21:46:01 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Hello All, > Is there a way to log incoming ICMP requests? What would have to be > wrapped in order to basically log all requests of the machine (pings in > particular) > > Thanks, > > D. Ghost > Package: ippl IP protocols logger ippl is a configurable IP protocols logger. It currently logs incoming ICMP messages, TCP connections and UDP datagrams. It is configured with Apache-like rules and has a built-in DNS cache. http://www.debian.org/Packages/stable/net/ippl.html Hope it helps. -- Tomasz Papszun SysAdm @ TP S.A. Lodz, Poland | And it's only [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.lodz.tpsa.pl/ | ones and zeros. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: ping
/sbin/ipchains -I imput -p icmp -l ipchains: Protocol not available Is that a kernel option or a package? I am not familiar with ipchains. Thanks for the reply! D Ghost On Thu, 21 Sep 2000, Jeremy L. Gaddis wrote: > Sure, just use ipchains: > > /sbin/ipchains -I input -p icmp -l > > -jg > > -- > Jeremy L. Gaddis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2000 9:46 PM > To: debian-isp > Subject: ping > > Hello All, > Is there a way to log incoming ICMP requests? What would have to be > wrapped in order to basically log all requests of the machine (pings in > particular) > > Thanks, > > D. Ghost > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
RE: ping
Sure, just use ipchains: /sbin/ipchains -I input -p icmp -l -jg -- Jeremy L. Gaddis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2000 9:46 PM To: debian-isp Subject: ping Hello All, Is there a way to log incoming ICMP requests? What would have to be wrapped in order to basically log all requests of the machine (pings in particular) Thanks, D. Ghost -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ping
Hello All, Is there a way to log incoming ICMP requests? What would have to be wrapped in order to basically log all requests of the machine (pings in particular) Thanks, D. Ghost
RE: ping
/sbin/ipchains -I imput -p icmp -l ipchains: Protocol not available Is that a kernel option or a package? I am not familiar with ipchains. Thanks for the reply! D Ghost On Thu, 21 Sep 2000, Jeremy L. Gaddis wrote: > Sure, just use ipchains: > > /sbin/ipchains -I input -p icmp -l > > -jg > > -- > Jeremy L. Gaddis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2000 9:46 PM > To: debian-isp > Subject: ping > > Hello All, > Is there a way to log incoming ICMP requests? What would have to be > wrapped in order to basically log all requests of the machine (pings in > particular) > > Thanks, > > D. Ghost > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: ping
Sure, just use ipchains: /sbin/ipchains -I input -p icmp -l -jg -- Jeremy L. Gaddis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2000 9:46 PM To: debian-isp Subject: ping Hello All, Is there a way to log incoming ICMP requests? What would have to be wrapped in order to basically log all requests of the machine (pings in particular) Thanks, D. Ghost -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ping
Hello All, Is there a way to log incoming ICMP requests? What would have to be wrapped in order to basically log all requests of the machine (pings in particular) Thanks, D. Ghost -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ping of death attacks
On Thu, Sep 14, 2000 at 08:39:41PM +0200, Sven Burgener wrote: > On Wed, Sep 13, 2000 at 07:13:07PM -0400, Chris Wagner wrote: > > Maybe he means ping floods? Pings of death usually will crash a > > box after a few packets hit it. As you said Debian is good about > > those kinds of things. > > Are these things just malformed packets / frames sent to some machine > or what? > I think versions of WinDos are vulnerable. http://www.insecure.org/sploits/ping-o-death.html -- Art Sackett
Re: ping of death attacks
On Wed, Sep 13, 2000 at 07:13:07PM -0400, Chris Wagner wrote: > Maybe he means ping floods? Pings of death usually will crash a > box after a few packets hit it. As you said Debian is good about > those kinds of things. Are these things just malformed packets / frames sent to some machine or what? I think versions of WinDos are vulnerable. Sven -- The UNIX Guru's view of sex: unzip ; strip ; touch ; finger mount ; fsck ; more ; yes ; umount sleep
Re: ping of death attacks
On Thu, Sep 14, 2000 at 08:39:41PM +0200, Sven Burgener wrote: > On Wed, Sep 13, 2000 at 07:13:07PM -0400, Chris Wagner wrote: > > Maybe he means ping floods? Pings of death usually will crash a > > box after a few packets hit it. As you said Debian is good about > > those kinds of things. > > Are these things just malformed packets / frames sent to some machine > or what? > I think versions of WinDos are vulnerable. http://www.insecure.org/sploits/ping-o-death.html -- Art Sackett -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ping of death attacks
On Wed, Sep 13, 2000 at 07:13:07PM -0400, Chris Wagner wrote: > Maybe he means ping floods? Pings of death usually will crash a > box after a few packets hit it. As you said Debian is good about > those kinds of things. Are these things just malformed packets / frames sent to some machine or what? I think versions of WinDos are vulnerable. Sven -- The UNIX Guru's view of sex: unzip ; strip ; touch ; finger mount ; fsck ; more ; yes ; umount sleep -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ping of death attacks
At 11:33 AM 9/13/00 -0600, Nathan wrote: >What ping of death attacks? > >The only ones I have heard of, were fixed with kernel patches seriously >quick after they came out. Maybe he means ping floods? Pings of death usually will crash a box after a few packets hit it. As you said Debian is good about those kinds of things. +---+ | -=H E L L - J U S T D O N ' T V O T E F O R G O R E=- | |=- -=W FOR PRESIDENT=- -=| | George W. Bush Vote for the principled leader | |=-- http://www.Bush2000.com. --=| ++ 0100
Re: ping of death attacks
At 11:33 AM 9/13/00 -0600, Nathan wrote: >What ping of death attacks? > >The only ones I have heard of, were fixed with kernel patches seriously >quick after they came out. Maybe he means ping floods? Pings of death usually will crash a box after a few packets hit it. As you said Debian is good about those kinds of things. +---+ | -=H E L L - J U S T D O N ' T V O T E F O R G O R E=- | |=- -=W FOR PRESIDENT=- -=| | George W. Bush Vote for the principled leader | |=-- http://www.Bush2000.com. --=| ++ 0100 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ping of death attacks
What ping of death attacks? The only ones I have heard of, were fixed with kernel patches seriously quick after they came out. On Wed, 13 Sep 100, Allen Ahoffman wrote: > Yes, I should find this elsewhere, but for speed's sake I'll ask here > anyway. > > Is Linux Debian or other vulnerable to "ping of death" DOS attacks? > Thanks. > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] >
ping of death attacks
Yes, I should find this elsewhere, but for speed's sake I'll ask here anyway. Is Linux Debian or other vulnerable to "ping of death" DOS attacks? Thanks.
Re: ping of death attacks
What ping of death attacks? The only ones I have heard of, were fixed with kernel patches seriously quick after they came out. On Wed, 13 Sep 100, Allen Ahoffman wrote: > Yes, I should find this elsewhere, but for speed's sake I'll ask here > anyway. > > Is Linux Debian or other vulnerable to "ping of death" DOS attacks? > Thanks. > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ping of death attacks
Yes, I should find this elsewhere, but for speed's sake I'll ask here anyway. Is Linux Debian or other vulnerable to "ping of death" DOS attacks? Thanks. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
