de some of
their internal hops.
Gotta run.
Priscilla
>-Original Message-
>From: Priscilla Oppenheimer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>Sent: Friday, September 14, 2001 1:57 PM
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: RE: traceroute [7:19963]
>
>
>At 01:14 PM 9/14/01, Wi
PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: traceroute [7:19963]
At 01:14 PM 9/14/01, Wilson, Bradley wrote:
>What you're seeing isn't a problem related to timeouts. Essentially, all a
>"trace" is is a series of regular ICMP pings with incremening TTL fields.
Agreed, but just wanted t
At 01:14 PM 9/14/01, Wilson, Bradley wrote:
>What you're seeing isn't a problem related to timeouts. Essentially, all a
>"trace" is is a series of regular ICMP pings with incremening TTL fields.
Agreed, but just wanted to add that Cisco and Unix send a UDP packet when
doing traceroute, not a pi
What you're seeing isn't a problem related to timeouts. Essentially, all a
"trace" is is a series of regular ICMP pings with incremening TTL fields.
If a particular router (say, the last hop when your TTL is set to 4) is
configured to not respond to pings, you'll get a timeout. However, the
rout
chances are, it's not skipping them but without an icmp reply from that
router, it won't register. The ttl still gets decremented and the packet
dropped, the tracing station then sends another icmp packet with a ttl of
one hop past the previous. If that router is answering icmp requests, it
5 matches
Mail list logo
