Hi Tarry,
with standard ping it takes the ip of the outgoing interface as source
address. with extended ping you can specify which ip to use:
opcore#ping
Protocol [ip]:
Target IP address: 192.168.1.1
Repeat count [5]:
Datagram size [100]:
Timeout in seconds [2]:
Extended commands [n]: y
Sour
Default Ping takes the address of the outbound port on your router. Default
being "ping xxx.yyy.zzz.abc"
If you just type "ping" (enter) then in the dialog that follows you can
specify the source address.
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Th
Ping your neighbor it goes to the target address (your neighbor). Ping
yourself (which is not the same as a 127.X.X.X loopback) & you send a beacon
to your neighbor... who tells you that you exist from his table. Pinging
yourself always takes longer. If you are running Frame-Relay, it's not
pos
Tarry,
For a standard ping, or for any trafffic orginated by the router for
that matter, the router will use the IP address applied to the
interface that sources the packet.
If your pinging a device on the other side of a serial interface, the
router will use the IP address of the serial in
Source Quench !
-Original Message-
From: Mauro Conosciani [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, January 15, 2001 1:51 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Ping
What does a Q ping respond mean ??
Thanks ???
_
FAQ, list archives, and subscript
Dennis,
Clearly ICMP protocol is enabled if you can ping server 1. It would seem
that the 2nd Servers IP address is not enabled in the Firewall access list.
You will have to work through / add to the access list.
Regards,
Mike Higgins
__
Consulting Telecommunica
Working server = Server1
Broken Server = Server2
1. Does Server2 have a default route back to the internet?
2. Is Server2 in your Firewalls ICMP-is-Okay list?
3. Does Server2 have a valid externam Ip address, and not a NAT'd private
ip?
Original Message Follows
From: "Dennis Ighomer
You might want to turn on debug then do the ping again.
HTH
HV
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
David Sanderson
Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 4:12 PM
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: PING TROUBLE
I have two routers, 3640 and 1602 both
Telco
switch, in order to return a Ping on their own interface.
Confused yet :-)
Phil
- Original Message -
From: "hao vu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'David Sanderson'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 11:
Circusnuts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 3:37 PM
To: hao vu; 'David Sanderson'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: PING TROUBLE
Ahh- this is a very hard thing to imagine. You are not not able to Ping the
3600 interface because you're not able to get the corre
uot;'Circusnuts'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 11:42 PM
Subject: RE: PING TROUBLE
> Thank you, yes it was the 1602. I had them setup back to back to test
before
> sending the 1602 offsite. Even though I could ping from th
SOURCE QUENCH:
The Source Quench message is used when IP needs to
perform congestion control. An intermediate router or
the destination host unsually sends an ICMP Source
Quench message for every datagram that it has to drop.
The source, on receiving the Source Quench message,
loweres the rate
RFC 1812, "Requirements for IPv4 Routers," deprecates use of source
quench. While you will see it on some exams and should know the
definition, source quench is not used as a congestion management
approach in modern networks.
>SOURCE QUENCH:
>
>The Source Quench message is used when IP needs
Macintoshes send source quench when you repeatedly ping them. I've never
seen any router send it. I think routers phased out source quench many
years ago. Macs are the only end nodes I have seen use it. They have to be
different, you know! &;-)
Priscilla
> >SOURCE QUENCH:
> >
> >The Source Q
On Mon, Jan 15, 2001 at 09:55:06AM -0800, Priscilla Oppenheimer wrote:
> Macintoshes send source quench when you repeatedly ping them. I've never
> seen any router send it. I think routers phased out source quench many
> years ago.
Just to provide another viewpoint, I occasionally notice router
I don't think it's an error. The first packet is probably lost while the
router or switch is performing an arp request. That takes a second or two
to come back, then the pings are successful. If you ping again (immediately
after the first time when you loose one packet) you shouldn't see any
dro
The first PING is lost because the source system is performing an ARP
request. The ARP information, once obtained, is cached (remembered) for a
small amount of time. Successive Pings to the host should show all four
replies.
Hope this helps,
Lance
""Eduardo Perestrelo"" wrote in message
[EMA
This isn't a Cisco issue, but the byproduct of a missing "new" entry in
the ARP table. You may know the layer 3 address for this new interface
and the router may know how to route it (i.e. this subnet exists off of
this interface), but it does not yet have the layer 2 address needed for
final deli
Search on CCO for "BRI0 is up, line protocol is up (spoofing)" turned up:
http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/112/chapter16.htm
"
What happens to a dialer interface that is not connected? If protocol is not
up and running on the interface, the implication is that the interface
itself will not be up
Not too much help I guess, but I can answer NO to all your questions. I have
not seen any of those replies.
Hth,
Ole
~~~
Ole Drews Jensen
Systems Network Manager
CCNA, MCSE, MCP+I
RWR Enterprises, Inc.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
~~~
I personally have yet to encounter anything except a period, an
exclamation point, a U, and I think possibly an A once. But that's it.
I've tried to get some of the others to occur but it doesn't seem that
Cisco has bothered to be too specific with their implementation. ;-)
Apparently, in Cisc
methodology questions - see in line:
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
Priscilla Oppenheimer
Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2001 2:47 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: ping replies [7:10910]
M Fragmentation was needed and the don't fragment
3:45 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: ping replies [7:10910]
I personally have yet to encounter anything except a period, an
exclamation point, a U, and I think possibly an A once. But that's it.
I've tried to get some of the others to occur but it doesn't seem that
Cisco ha
Hey. I can verify the ! and . characters :-)
LOL
Mike W.
"Priscilla Oppenheimer" wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> As we all know, ping is really an ICMP echo. There are many possible ICMP
> replies. Now, Cisco could tell the user of the Cisco IOS ping comman
@groupstudy.com on 07/03/2001 06:58:02
PM
Please respond to "Chuck Larrieu"
Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc:(bcc: Kevin Cullimore)
Subject: RE: ping replies [7:10910]
methodology questions - see in line:
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I have seen an 'E', but only with failed Appletalk pings, never in IP.
Question (slightly off-topic, my apologies, Priscilla) - does anybody know
exactly how Cisco implements ping and trace in non-IP protocols? With
Appletalk, I presume it has something to do with AEP, but how about a IPX
trace,
I have seen E also, but only with AppleTalk. AppleTalk ping is AEP. IPX
ping has two versions -- Cisco proprietary and Novell compatible. As far as
the other pings and trace routes, I don't know! I intend to find out though!
In answer to the implied (from Chuck ;-) question as to why I should c
-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
Priscilla Oppenheimer
Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2001 8:44 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: ping replies [7:10910]
I have seen E also, but only with AppleTalk. AppleTalk ping is AEP. IPX
ping has two versions -- Cisco propriet
d drill
>down. Obviously there are limitations to that approach. Were you checking
>the TAC pages?
>
>Chuck
>
>-Original Message-
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
>Priscilla Oppenheimer
>Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2001 8:44 AM
>To:
Priscilla,
Actually, I have seen an H. The other day we were testing connectivity to a
new site in Germany. The connection leaves our network via a router that's
at our site and owned by another company. It traverses this other network
and then arrives at the site in Germany at a router, again ow
Orlando Palomar Jr CCIE#11206 wrote:
>
> You have a routing problem. Check your routing tables
> thouroughly. I'm sure you're missing some networks.
>
> The reason you're able to ping one-way is because you're using
> different sets of source and destination IP addresses when
> pinging from rout
You have a routing problem. Check your routing tables thouroughly. I'm sure
you're missing some networks.
The reason you're able to ping one-way is because you're using different
sets of source and destination IP addresses when pinging from router A to
router F, as compared to pinging from router
Several thoughts:
A standard ping uses as its source address the address of the exit
interface.
Extended ping can use the address of any interface on that router.
Do a trace to see where it fails.
Check the routing tables of the various routers.
Somewhere a route is missing.
For example - suppose r
At 02:55 PM 3/25/2003 +, Peter P wrote:
>I can ping from router A through various hops to router F.
>Therefore the packet'knows' how to reach F - and also how to find a path
>back to A by reply. However from router F I cannot ping router A.
>As the ping works in the first case - ie it knows the
At 04:35 PM 3/25/2003 +, Priscilla Oppenheimer wrote:
>Orlando Palomar Jr CCIE#11206 wrote:
> >
> > You have a routing problem. Check your routing tables
> > thouroughly. I'm sure you're missing some networks.
> >
> > The reason you're able to ping one-way is because you're using
> > different
do a traceroute from F to A and see what it says and email it to
this list...
Larry Letterman
Network Engineer
Cisco Systems
- Original Message -
From: Peter P
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2003 6:55 AM
Subject: ping things [7:66155]
I can ping from router
At 04:35 PM 3/25/2003 +, Priscilla Oppenheimer wrote:
>Orlando Palomar Jr CCIE#11206 wrote:
> >
> > You have a routing problem. Check your routing tables
> > thouroughly. I'm sure you're missing some networks.
> >
> > The reason you're able to ping one-way is because you're using
> > different
: srinivas kunthuri ; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2003 1:09 AM
Subject: Re: PING PROBLEM [7:66132]
to ping the serial interface usually it has to go to the remote end and
then
back...make sure the path from end to end is working...
Larry Letterman
Network Engineer
Cisco
Engineer
Cisco Systems
- Original Message -
From: srinivas kunthuri
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2003 8:43 PM
Subject: Re: PING PROBLEM [7:66132]
Hi Larry,
I did not understand what you are saying. I had pinged my local serial
interface. it is giving
OK If I use the loopback addr then I can see ext trace going right way.
Now I need to make the rtr use this addr as the source
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=66237&t=66155
--
FAQ, list archives, and subscription inf
I can reach my end node by declaring the loopback address as the source. By
default the router is using the seril i/f address. Unless I use the loopback
as the source it dont work. So I need to understand how to fix this - I
imagine the intervening hops are where the trouble lies
Message Posted a
day, March 25, 2003 8:43 PM
> Subject: Re: PING PROBLEM [7:66132]
>
>
> Hi Larry,
>
> I did not understand what you are saying. I had pinged my local serial
> interface. it is giving request timed out. i had pinged the remote end
>serial
> ip. it is giving rep
PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: ping things [7:66155]
OK If I use the loopback addr then I can see ext trace going right way.
Now I need to make the rtr use this addr as the source
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=66241&
The reason it doesn't work is someone somewhere doesn't have a route
to your loopback interface.
Dave
Peter P wrote:
> I can reach my end node by declaring the loopback address as the source. By
> default the router is using the seril i/f address. Unless I use the
loopback
> as the source it
hi i've check the last 2 suggestions and i feel it should work but if it
doesnt try to shut down the interface and then bring it up then use the
command sh int to see if all is up line protocol and all that
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=66262&t=66132
---
At 12:55 PM 3/26/2003 +, Peter P wrote:
>I can reach my end node by declaring the loopback address as the source. By
>default the router is using the seril i/f address. Unless I use the loopback
>as the source it dont work. So I need to understand how to fix this - I
>imagine the intervening ho
link does have to be OK or looped.
Priscilla
>
> Pete
>
>
>
> >Larry Letterman
> >Network Engineer
> >Cisco Systems
> >
> >
> > - Original Message -
> > From: srinivas kunthuri
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent:
I don't know what an SCPC PAMA VSAT is :-), but on many types of WANs you
need a map statement to your own interface to be able to ping it.
It's true what other people said about the router sending a ping out the
serial interface and letting it bounce back from the other end when you ping
your own
PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: ping things [7:66155]
OK If I use the loopback addr then I can see ext trace going right way.
Now I need to make the rtr use this addr as the source
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=66477&
Frederico Madeira wrote:
> Hellow,
>
> i have a problem in conectivity of my two fr networks.
>
> If i ping from any host on LAN1 to any host on LAN2 he works fine, but if i
> ping from router1 to any host on LAN2, dont4t work.
> I understand becouse in two cases the packet trought for same route
ADMAN"
> To: "Frederico Madeira"
> Cc:
> Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 2:31 PM
> Subject: Re: Ping Problems [7:70980]
>
>
>
>>
>>Frederico Madeira wrote:
>>
>>>Hellow,
>>>
>>>i have a problem in conectivity of my two fr
co Madeira"
Cc:
Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 2:31 PM
Subject: Re: Ping Problems [7:70980]
>
>
> Frederico Madeira wrote:
> > Hellow,
> >
> > i have a problem in conectivity of my two fr networks.
> >
> > If i ping from any host on LAN1 to any host on LAN
Hi,
Remember that when you ping from the console the source address will be the
interface where the packet exists. Therefore I suggest you do an extended
ping and specify the source address as the ethernet address. I'm pretty sure
you will see this is the problem.
Cheers,
Message Posted at:
ht
tda
PABX: 81. 3497.3029
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Original Message -
From: "MADMAN"
To: "Frederico Madeira"
Cc: ;
Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 3:11 PM
Subject: Re: Ping Problems [7:70980]
If you can ping host to host from router A's LAN to router B
msec 28 msec
> 2 10.61.2.2 28 msec 24 msec 24 msec
>
> Frederico Madeira
> Coordenador de Suporte
> N. Landim Comircio Ltda
> PABX: 81. 3497.3029
> e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "MADMAN"
> To: "Fre
: 81. 3497.3029
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Original Message -
From: "Priscilla Oppenheimer"
To:
Sent: Sunday, June 22, 2003 9:57 PM
Subject: Re: Ping Problems [7:70980]
> Frederico Madeira wrote:
> >
> > Dave
> >
> > A: GW= 10.61.2.1 / HOST: 1
l: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Priscilla Oppenheimer"
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, June 22, 2003 9:57 PM
> Subject: Re: Ping Problems [7:70980]
>
>
>
>>Frederico Madeira wrote:
>>
>>>Dave
>>>
>>>A: G
PABX: 81. 3497.3029
> e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Priscilla Oppenheimer"
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, June 22, 2003 9:57 PM
> Subject: Re: Ping Problems [7:70980]
>
>
> > Frederico Madeira wrote:
> > >
> > &
: 81. 3497.3029
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Original Message -
From: "MADMAN"
To: "Frederico Madeira"
Cc:
Sent: Monday, June 23, 2003 1:49 PM
Subject: Re: Ping Problems [7:70980]
>
>
>Really, interesting as more info is getting out!!
>
>What
t; N. Landim Comircio Ltda
> PABX: 81. 3497.3029
> e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "MADMAN"
> To: "Frederico Madeira"
> Cc:
> Sent: Monday, June 23, 2003 1:49 PM
> Subject: Re: Ping Problems [7:70980]
>
>
t have
> > route to interfaces**. But if i ping on ethernet of all
> routers it works.
> >
> > Frederico Madeira
> > Coordenador de Suporte
> > N. Landim Comircio Ltda
> > PABX: 81. 3497.3029
> > e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > - Ori
Things like serialization delay, propogation delay, ingress & egress
queuing affect links. Also, when dealing with ICMP, keep in mind that
the far end router needs to process and respond to the query, which
might take a lot longer than it would for the router to forward a
packet. Hence, your ping
and responding to an ICMP is not a high priority for the router.
Dave
Peter van Oene wrote:
>
> Things like serialization delay, propogation delay, ingress & egress
> queuing affect links. Also, when dealing with ICMP, keep in mind that
> the far end router needs to process and respond to t
traffic congestion on the circuit
""NIGEC Spar Engineers"" wrote in message
news:200211131018.KAA02102@;groupstudy.com...
> please could anyone tell me what are the factors that affect a WAN link
> ping return time. does the latency has to do with the link quality or the
> amount of traffic over t
What type of device?
What layer 2 protocol? PPP or HDLC?
What is the source and destination of the ping?
""DW"" wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I am running 2 WAN links through the same router and have been have
session
> disconnect problems recently. I have been
Are you pinging a directly connected interface or something deeper into the
network???
-Original Message-
From: DW [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, July 29, 2002 11:44 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Ping latency [7:50018]
I am running 2 WAN links through the same router an
The devices are both 2610's. I am telnetting to one of the 2610's and
pinging the serial interface / Frame Relay subinterface on the directly
connected devices (Not pinging into the network). The leased line is running
PPP. What is strange is that it is the same result across both links. The
Min/M
Try pinging into the network. I wouldn't trust the results of pinging the
router's own serial interface. Routers have more important things to do than
respond to pings. I can't say for sure (better read that IOS Architecture
book!), but I think the IOS responds to pings at a low priority. Try ping
Thanks for the replies. Priscilla I tried the ping into both of the networks
in question and have recieved the same results. As an aside, is there an
acceptable level of variance in the results of a ping and what are the side
effects of such a large dicrepancy in the ping response times.
I have ru
It might be time to break out the sniffer. Have a host copy a file over the
network across the link and look at the general response times it each
packet takes on the acknowledements. Do a variety of tests in this manner.
if you could run netperf, a freeware, across the link that'd be good.
""DW"
DW wrote:
>
> Thanks for the replies. Priscilla I tried the ping into both of
> the networks
> in question and have recieved the same results. As an aside, is
> there an
> acceptable level of variance in the results of a ping and what
> are the side
I can't quote an exact number for an acceptabl
check your counters for CRC or collions incrementation...
""Desai, Inamul"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> We have 2620 connected to ISDN 1004 routers. The problem
> is pinging from LAN to router returns some timeouts and
> delayed pings (1200
I have quite few ISDNs with exact same config but
only couple of them having latency problems.
How do I chk CRC and counters on 1004 ? In mean time,
I will look for command to figure out command to chk counters.
Thanks,
Inamul
""CiScO"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
96i65p$e05$[EMAIL PROT
Hi,
As I understand it an interface needs to be up to ping it.
You can come unglued from time to time also. We have a heap of people connected to an
access router (we have 100's of them) The access routers have a dialer interface is
unnumbered with the ip address pointed to loopback 1 eg 10.1
Hi,
10 ms seems high on a switched network.
I assume that both networks (Switches) have a trunk between each other and from one
switch back to the router if you are using VLAN's.
Check your ethernet interface on your router. See what traffic it is doing. Check
for collisions, Late collis
What about the times when you ping from switch to switch? Is it slow when you
try that?
In a message dated 1/2/01 6:10:33 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Hi,
>
> 10 ms seems high on a switched network.
>
> I assume that both networks (Switches) have a trunk between e
One thing you can also try is to ping both interfaces
on the router from one of the hosts to see if it slows
over the router. If it slows between the .1
interfaces then you may be running way to much
information over the router with an access-list that
is too complicated for a low end router (or
The Response time of pinging from switch to switch is not slow
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 8:16 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Ping response between subnets slow
>
>
nesday, January 03, 2001 8:16 AM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject:Re: Ping response between subnets slow
> >
> > What about the times when you ping from switch to switch? Is it slow when
> > you
> > try that?
> >
> > In a message date
Hi Tony,
Yes you were correct. There are a large number of
packets crossing the subnet. This is think creates a
bottleneck on the ethernet port on the router.
The Ping response within the same subnet also was
badly affected.( I could see a lot of users coming
towards me... so Rebooting the router
my thoughts on finding the device:
1 sh cdp neigh
2 sh arp - if mac entry is there, trace down device...
3 sniff.
-jm
"Phil Barker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Hi,
>
> I have 2 Routers connected via 3 Fa/Eth segments.
> The segs are c
Jeff,
It is a Novell 5 Server. Think it may have
something to do with SLP protocol on this box using
the same multicast address 224.0.0.2
Regards,
Phil.
--- Jeff McCoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >
my thoughts on finding the device:
> 1 sh cdp neigh
> 2 sh arp - if mac entry is there, t
To my knowledge, Netware 5 SLP Multicast uses a well-known address of
224.0.1.22, not 224.0.0.2...
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
Phil Barker
Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2000 8:39 AM
To: Jeff McCoy; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re
If a standby IP is set, could this be the virtual IPs response to the ping
of the multicast address?
Phil Barker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Hi,
>
> I have 2 Routers connected via 3 Fa/Eth segments.
> The segs are configured in an HSRP arra
John,
If you have two routers on one LAN and ping 224.0.0.2 then only the other
router should respond, you will not get a response from the 'virtual' HSRP
IP.
Regards,
Bill.
"John Guenther" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
8tpjeq$e45$[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:8tpjeq$e45$[EMAIL PROTECTED]..
I thought SLP used something in the 10 or 20s range for the last octet.
HSRP uses 0100 5E00 0002 for the destination MAC address. Is this what ARP
is resolving?
Chuck
>Jeff,
> It is a Novell 5 Server. Think it may have
>something to do with SLP protocol on this box using
>the same multicast
04:28
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Ping HSRP 224.0.0.2 Strange reply ?
I thought SLP used something in the 10 or 20s range for the last octet.
HSRP uses 0100 5E00 0002 for the destination MAC address. Is this what ARP
is resolving?
Chuck
>Jeff,
> It is a Novell 5 Server. Think
Source quench (destination too busy)
http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/63/ping_traceroute.html
Gaz
""Laubstein, Stuart"" wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> What does Q mean as an answer to a ping? Sometimes the ping works(!) and
> sometimes I receive the Q's
>
> th
Source quench. It's pretty rare to see this. Mac OS sends it (pre Mac OS
X). I don't know if I've seen anything else send it. The idea behind it is
to tell the pinger to slow down.
Priscilla
At 07:31 AM 2/6/02, Laubstein, Stuart wrote:
>What does Q mean as an answer to a ping? Sometimes the p
To ping all the interfaces, create a list in notepad and
paste it into each router. The key is to change the
ASCII delay in Hyperterminal to something like 500 ms.
Also if you have frame relay interfaces make sure you
have a map for the local interface.
Cheers, Fred.
> I would like to creat
Could be anything!
Verify that show arp in both routers show eachothers IP addresses. Make sure
that addressing is similar (same mask and subnet). Verify that connected
interfaces are up/up (without keepalives being disabled). Can you ping
serial to serial? Ethernet to ethernet?
Michael Todd
Mes
I think u need to elaborate a little. Non extended ping just sends 5
packets to the host and spits results. Extended ping lets you manipulate
many facets of the test.
Brian
- Original Message -
From: "birdy"
To:
Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2001 9:57 PM
Subject: ping and trace [7:
Brian
Thanks for the response :)
supposingly i do a trace from my router to 202.4.185.101
and it shows the following results :
Type escape sequence to abort.
Tracing the route to 202.4.185.101
1 202.161.130.18 0 msec 0 msec 0 msec
2 12.125.92.37 [AS 7018] 56 msec 52 msec 60 msec
3 12.123
sisco wrote:
>
> gurus, :)
> Is ping/icmp protocol needs to be prioritized on Lan
> environment just
> to have a good latency ping result? is it ping a good basis for
> measuring
> your
> network if it is congested? Thanks!
Ping can help you understand if a network is congested if it's just a sim
Wow! Given your CCIE number you must be using a REALLY old router for that
ping. Most newer models send five echo requests, not three. Either that or
some packets got lost somewhere...
Fred Reimer - CCNA
Eclipsys Corporation, 200 Ashford Center North, Atlanta, GA 30338
Phone: 404-847-5177 Ce
ssage-
From: Reimer, Fred [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2003 9:26 AM
To: Brian McGahan; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: ping [EMAIL PROTECTED] [7:74702]
Wow! Given your CCIE number you must be using a REALLY old router for
that
ping. Most newer models send five echo req
Make sure the devices knows how to get back to the next hop ; (ie static
route back to the network you're sitting in)
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=6199&t=6057
--
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://
You need to find out why the routing process does not work with the serial
interfaces..if the loopback works, the serial interfaces should work also...
do you have any configs ?
Larry Letterman
Network Engineer
Cisco Systems
- Original Message -
From: Peter P
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Peter P wrote:
>
> When I traceroute or ping to a remote node from Router A - no
> reply. If so an extended traceroute or ping using the source's
> loopback address - hey presto- all works fine. So how do I get
> the route to use its loopback address as the source - rather
> than the serial interf
Of course. Thanks
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=66372&t=66242
--
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECT
1 - 100 of 151 matches
Mail list logo
