Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.networking > #2403 > unrolled thread
| Started by | billy <billy@is.invalid> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2013-10-08 03:32 +0000 |
| Last post | 2013-10-13 02:04 +0200 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 127 — 22 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.networking
Frustrated that I don't UNDERSTAND why my network times out billy <billy@is.invalid> - 2013-10-08 03:32 +0000
Re: Frustrated that I don't UNDERSTAND why my network times out "Gary R. Schmidt" <grschmidt@acm.org> - 2013-10-08 15:37 +1100
Re: Frustrated that I don't UNDERSTAND why my network times out billy <billy@is.invalid> - 2013-10-09 14:26 +0000
Re: Frustrated that I don't UNDERSTAND why my network times out Thomas Keusch <fwd+usenet-spam2013q4-1381444031@spam2013q4.bsd-solutions-duesseldorf.de> - 2013-10-10 22:32 +0000
Re: Frustrated that I don't UNDERSTAND why my network times out David Hough <noone$$@llondel.org> - 2013-10-08 07:30 +0100
Re: Frustrated that I don't UNDERSTAND why my network times out Chris Davies <chris-usenet@roaima.co.uk> - 2013-10-08 19:32 +0100
Re: Frustrated that I don't UNDERSTAND why my network times out Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> - 2013-10-08 23:16 +0300
Re: Frustrated that I don't UNDERSTAND why my network times out billy <billy@is.invalid> - 2013-10-09 17:39 +0000
Re: Frustrated that I don't UNDERSTAND why my network times out Mike Easter <MikeE@ster.invalid> - 2013-10-09 11:28 -0700
Re: Frustrated that I don't UNDERSTAND why my network times out billy <billy@is.invalid> - 2013-10-09 18:52 +0000
Re: Frustrated that I don't UNDERSTAND why my network times out Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> - 2013-10-09 22:47 +0300
Re: Frustrated that I don't UNDERSTAND why my network times out billy <billy@is.invalid> - 2013-10-09 20:50 +0000
Re: Frustrated that I don't UNDERSTAND why my network times out unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2013-10-09 21:30 +0000
Re: Frustrated that I don't UNDERSTAND why my network times out billy <billy@is.invalid> - 2013-10-10 01:05 +0000
Re: Frustrated that I don't UNDERSTAND why my network times out billy <billy@is.invalid> - 2013-10-10 01:09 +0000
Re: Frustrated that I don't UNDERSTAND why my network times out unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2013-10-09 19:51 +0000
Re: Frustrated that I don't UNDERSTAND why my network times out billy <billy@is.invalid> - 2013-10-09 20:42 +0000
Re: Frustrated that I don't UNDERSTAND why my network times out ~BD~ <~BD~@nomail.afraid.org> - 2013-10-09 22:09 +0100
Re: Frustrated that I don't UNDERSTAND why my network times out billy <billy@is.invalid> - 2013-10-10 01:07 +0000
Re: Frustrated that I don't UNDERSTAND why my network times out ~BD~ <~BD~@nomail.afraid.org> - 2013-10-10 07:41 +0100
Re: Frustrated that I don't UNDERSTAND why my network times out unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2013-10-09 21:36 +0000
Re: Frustrated that I don't UNDERSTAND why my network times out Mike Easter <MikeE@ster.invalid> - 2013-10-09 15:51 -0700
Re: Frustrated that I don't UNDERSTAND why my network times out unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2013-10-10 00:15 +0000
Re: Frustrated that I don't UNDERSTAND why my network times out billy <billy@is.invalid> - 2013-10-10 00:19 +0000
Re: Frustrated that I don't UNDERSTAND why my network times out billy <billy@is.invalid> - 2013-10-10 00:33 +0000
Re: Frustrated that I don't UNDERSTAND why my network times out billy <billy@is.invalid> - 2013-10-09 10:54 +0000
Re: Frustrated that I don't UNDERSTAND why my network times out billy <billy@is.invalid> - 2013-10-09 11:09 +0000
Re: Frustrated that I don't UNDERSTAND why my network times out "ps56k" <pschuman_no5pam_m3@interserv.com> - 2013-10-10 16:34 -0500
Re: Frustrated that I don't UNDERSTAND why my network times out unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2013-10-10 22:40 +0000
Re: Frustrated that I don't UNDERSTAND why my network times out "ps56k" <pschuman_no5pam_m3@interserv.com> - 2013-10-10 18:27 -0500
Re: Frustrated that I don't UNDERSTAND why my network times out Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com> - 2013-10-10 16:49 -0700
Re: Frustrated that I don't UNDERSTAND why my network times out billy <billy@is.invalid> - 2013-10-11 00:40 +0000
Re: Frustrated that I don't UNDERSTAND why my network times out Thomas Keusch <fwd+usenet-spam2013q4-1381456101@spam2013q4.bsd-solutions-duesseldorf.de> - 2013-10-11 01:50 +0000
Re: Frustrated that I don't UNDERSTAND why my network times out billy <billy@is.invalid> - 2013-10-11 03:24 +0000
Re: Frustrated that I don't UNDERSTAND why my network times out dyrmak <dyrmak@orange.fr.invalid> - 2013-10-11 08:50 +0000
Re: Frustrated that I don't UNDERSTAND why my network times out billy <billy@is.invalid> - 2013-10-11 14:26 +0000
Re: Frustrated that I don't UNDERSTAND why my network times out unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2013-10-11 16:03 +0000
Re: Frustrated that I don't UNDERSTAND why my network times out billy <billy@is.invalid> - 2013-10-11 20:19 +0000
Re: Frustrated that I don't UNDERSTAND why my network times out unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2013-10-11 20:38 +0000
Re: Frustrated that I don't UNDERSTAND why my network times out Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> - 2013-10-11 21:34 +0300
Re: Frustrated that I don't UNDERSTAND why my network times out Chris Davies <chris-usenet@roaima.co.uk> - 2013-10-11 00:00 +0100
Re: Frustrated that I don't UNDERSTAND why my network times out billy <billy@is.invalid> - 2013-10-09 11:18 +0000
Re: Frustrated that I don't UNDERSTAND why my network times out Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> - 2013-10-09 15:16 +0300
Re: Frustrated that I don't UNDERSTAND why my network times out billy <billy@is.invalid> - 2013-10-09 17:41 +0000
Re: Frustrated that I don't UNDERSTAND why my network times out Chris Davies <chris-usenet@roaima.co.uk> - 2013-10-09 19:22 +0100
Re: Frustrated that I don't UNDERSTAND why my network times out billy <billy@is.invalid> - 2013-10-09 21:18 +0000
Re: Frustrated that I don't UNDERSTAND why my network times out Rick Jones <rick.jones2@hp.com> - 2013-10-09 20:44 +0000
Re: Frustrated that I don't UNDERSTAND why my network times out unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2013-10-09 21:46 +0000
Re: Frustrated that I don't UNDERSTAND why my network times out billy <billy@is.invalid> - 2013-10-10 00:39 +0000
Re: Frustrated that I don't UNDERSTAND why my network times out Rick Jones <rick.jones2@hp.com> - 2013-10-10 01:30 +0000
Re: Frustrated that I don't UNDERSTAND why my network times out billy <billy@is.invalid> - 2013-10-10 01:32 +0000
Re: Frustrated that I don't UNDERSTAND why my network times out "David W. Hodgins" <dwhodgins@nomail.afraid.org> - 2013-10-09 22:25 -0400
Re: Frustrated that I don't UNDERSTAND why my network times out billy <billy@is.invalid> - 2013-10-10 03:48 +0000
Re: Frustrated that I don't UNDERSTAND why my network times out unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2013-10-10 05:10 +0000
Re: Frustrated that I don't UNDERSTAND why my network times out ein <ein@no.spam> - 2013-10-10 13:24 +0200
Re: Frustrated that I don't UNDERSTAND why my network times out Chris Davies <chris-usenet@roaima.co.uk> - 2013-10-10 10:31 +0100
Re: Frustrated that I don't UNDERSTAND why my network times out unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2013-10-10 17:37 +0000
Re: Frustrated that I don't UNDERSTAND why my network times out Chris Davies <chris-usenet@roaima.co.uk> - 2013-10-11 00:01 +0100
Re: Frustrated that I don't UNDERSTAND why my network times out billy <billy@is.invalid> - 2013-10-10 20:21 +0000
Re: Frustrated that I don't UNDERSTAND why my network times out unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2013-10-10 21:04 +0000
Re: Frustrated that I don't UNDERSTAND why my network times out billy <billy@is.invalid> - 2013-10-11 01:18 +0000
Re: Frustrated that I don't UNDERSTAND why my network times out Chris Davies <chris-usenet@roaima.co.uk> - 2013-10-11 00:03 +0100
Re: Frustrated that I don't UNDERSTAND why my network times out billy <billy@is.invalid> - 2013-10-11 00:57 +0000
Re: Frustrated that I don't UNDERSTAND why my network times out billy <billy@is.invalid> - 2013-10-11 01:07 +0000
Re: Frustrated that I don't UNDERSTAND why my network times out Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2013-10-11 08:56 +0100
Re: Frustrated that I don't UNDERSTAND why my network times out billy <billy@is.invalid> - 2013-10-10 00:47 +0000
Re: Frustrated that I don't UNDERSTAND why my network times out billy <billy@is.invalid> - 2013-10-10 00:58 +0000
Re: Frustrated that I don't UNDERSTAND why my network times out Rick Jones <rick.jones2@hp.com> - 2013-10-10 01:24 +0000
Re: Frustrated that I don't UNDERSTAND why my network times out Bit Twister <BitTwister@mouse-potato.com> - 2013-10-09 12:23 +0000
Re: Frustrated that I don't UNDERSTAND why my network times out Chris Davies <chris-usenet@roaima.co.uk> - 2013-10-09 19:27 +0100
Re: Frustrated that I don't UNDERSTAND why my network times out billy <billy@is.invalid> - 2013-10-09 21:21 +0000
Re: Frustrated that I don't UNDERSTAND why my network times out unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2013-10-09 21:47 +0000
Re: Frustrated that I don't UNDERSTAND why my network times out billy <billy@is.invalid> - 2013-10-09 10:43 +0000
Re: Frustrated that I don't UNDERSTAND why my network times out billy <billy@is.invalid> - 2013-10-09 10:51 +0000
Re: Frustrated that I don't UNDERSTAND why my network times out nemesis <nemesis@home.it> - 2013-10-09 08:14 -0300
Re: Frustrated that I don't UNDERSTAND why my network times out "p-0''0-h the cat (ES)" <super.pooh@furryfreeware.invalid> - 2013-10-09 12:24 +0100
Re: Frustrated that I don't UNDERSTAND why my network times out nemesis <nemesis@home.it> - 2013-10-09 08:42 -0300
Re: Frustrated that I don't UNDERSTAND why my network times out billy <billy@is.invalid> - 2013-10-09 13:57 +0000
Re: Frustrated that I don't UNDERSTAND why my network times out "p-0''0-h the cat (ES)" <super.pooh@furryfreeware.invalid> - 2013-10-09 15:09 +0100
Re: Frustrated that I don't UNDERSTAND why my network times out billy <billy@is.invalid> - 2013-10-09 11:27 +0000
Re: Frustrated that I don't UNDERSTAND why my network times out nemesis <nemesis@home.it> - 2013-10-09 08:58 -0300
Re: Frustrated that I don't UNDERSTAND why my network times out billy <billy@is.invalid> - 2013-10-09 18:44 +0000
Re: Frustrated that I don't UNDERSTAND why my network times out unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2013-10-09 19:58 +0000
Re: Frustrated that I don't UNDERSTAND why my network times out billy <billy@is.invalid> - 2013-10-09 21:23 +0000
Re: Frustrated that I don't UNDERSTAND why my network times out unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2013-10-09 21:38 +0000
Re: Frustrated that I don't UNDERSTAND why my network times out Mike Easter <MikeE@ster.invalid> - 2013-10-09 16:14 -0700
Re: Frustrated that I don't UNDERSTAND why my network times out billy <billy@is.invalid> - 2013-10-10 00:30 +0000
Re: Frustrated that I don't UNDERSTAND why my network times out Mike Easter <MikeE@ster.invalid> - 2013-10-09 18:02 -0700
Re: Frustrated that I don't UNDERSTAND why my network times out Rick Jones <rick.jones2@hp.com> - 2013-10-10 01:37 +0000
Re: Frustrated that I don't UNDERSTAND why my network times out unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2013-10-10 03:17 +0000
Re: Frustrated that I don't UNDERSTAND why my network times out billy <billy@is.invalid> - 2013-10-10 20:03 +0000
Re: Frustrated that I don't UNDERSTAND why my network times out billy <billy@is.invalid> - 2013-10-10 20:06 +0000
Re: Frustrated that I don't UNDERSTAND why my network times out billy <billy@is.invalid> - 2013-10-09 21:27 +0000
Re: Frustrated that I don't UNDERSTAND why my network times out unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2013-10-09 22:15 +0000
Re: Frustrated that I don't UNDERSTAND why my network times out billy <billy@is.invalid> - 2013-10-10 00:35 +0000
Re: Frustrated that I don't UNDERSTAND why my network times out "p-0''0-h the cat (ES)" <super.pooh@furryfreeware.invalid> - 2013-10-10 09:15 +0100
Re: Frustrated that I don't UNDERSTAND why my network times out billy <billy@is.invalid> - 2013-10-11 01:40 +0000
Re: Frustrated that I don't UNDERSTAND why my network times out nemesis <nemesis@home.it> - 2013-10-10 23:03 -0300
Re: Frustrated that I don't UNDERSTAND why my network times out billy <billy@is.invalid> - 2013-10-11 14:43 +0000
Re: Frustrated that I don't UNDERSTAND why my network times out ~BD~ <~BD~@nomail.afraid.org> - 2013-10-11 16:11 +0100
Re: Frustrated that I don't UNDERSTAND why my network times out unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2013-10-11 04:11 +0000
Re: Frustrated that I don't UNDERSTAND why my network times out billy <billy@is.invalid> - 2013-10-11 04:19 +0000
Re: Frustrated that I don't UNDERSTAND why my network times out billy <billy@is.invalid> - 2013-10-11 04:25 +0000
Re: Frustrated that I don't UNDERSTAND why my network times out unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2013-10-11 04:45 +0000
Re: Frustrated that I don't UNDERSTAND why my network times out ein <ein@no.spam> - 2013-10-11 08:06 +0200
Re: Frustrated that I don't UNDERSTAND why my network times out billy <billy@is.invalid> - 2013-10-11 14:32 +0000
Re: Frustrated that I don't UNDERSTAND why my network times out billy <billy@is.invalid> - 2013-10-11 14:41 +0000
Re: Frustrated that I don't UNDERSTAND why my network times out billy <billy@is.invalid> - 2013-10-11 14:48 +0000
Re: Frustrated that I don't UNDERSTAND why my network times out Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2013-10-11 09:00 +0100
Re: Frustrated that I don't UNDERSTAND why my network times out billy <billy@is.invalid> - 2013-10-11 14:30 +0000
Re: Frustrated that I don't UNDERSTAND why my network times out Rick Jones <rick.jones2@hp.com> - 2013-10-14 19:20 +0000
Re: Frustrated that I don't UNDERSTAND why my network times out "p-0''0-h the cat (ES)" <super.pooh@furryfreeware.invalid> - 2013-10-11 10:17 +0100
Re: Frustrated that I don't UNDERSTAND why my network times out billy <billy@is.invalid> - 2013-10-11 14:23 +0000
Re: Frustrated that I don't UNDERSTAND why my network times out "p-0''0-h the cat (ES)" <super.pooh@furryfreeware.invalid> - 2013-10-11 22:46 +0100
Re: Frustrated that I don't UNDERSTAND why my network times out Scott Hemphill <hemphill@hemphills.net> - 2013-10-14 16:47 -0400
Re: Frustrated that I don't UNDERSTAND why my network times out unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2013-10-09 16:17 +0000
Re: Frustrated that I don't UNDERSTAND why my network times out "ps56k" <pschuman_no5pam_m3@interserv.com> - 2013-10-10 16:41 -0500
Re: Frustrated that I don't UNDERSTAND why my network times out Mike Easter <MikeE@ster.invalid> - 2013-10-10 15:16 -0700
Re: Frustrated that I don't UNDERSTAND why my network times out Mike Easter <MikeE@ster.invalid> - 2013-10-10 15:18 -0700
Re: Frustrated that I don't UNDERSTAND why my network times out "ps56k" <pschuman_no5pam_m3@interserv.com> - 2013-10-13 14:34 -0500
Re: Frustrated that I don't UNDERSTAND why my network times out Mike Easter <MikeE@ster.invalid> - 2013-10-13 14:27 -0700
Re: Frustrated that I don't UNDERSTAND why my network times out "ps56k" <pschuman_no5pam_m3@interserv.com> - 2013-10-17 14:58 -0500
Re: Frustrated that I don't UNDERSTAND why my network times out "petrus bitbyter" <petrus.bitbyter@hotmail.com> - 2013-10-11 22:17 +0200
Re: Frustrated that I don't UNDERSTAND why my network times out "petrus bitbyter" <petrus.bitbyter@hotmail.com> - 2013-10-11 22:42 +0200
Re: Frustrated that I don't UNDERSTAND why my network times out unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2013-10-11 21:16 +0000
Re: Frustrated that I don't UNDERSTAND why my network times out "David W. Hodgins" <dwhodgins@nomail.afraid.org> - 2013-10-11 18:15 -0400
Re: Frustrated that I don't UNDERSTAND why my network times out "petrus bitbyter" <petrus.bitbyter@hotmail.com> - 2013-10-13 02:04 +0200
Page 1 of 7 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next page →
| From | billy <billy@is.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-10-08 03:32 +0000 |
| Subject | Frustrated that I don't UNDERSTAND why my network times out |
| Message-ID | <l2vumu$4bj$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
Why can't I connect (via port 80 or any port) to a certain web site? For more than a year I've had the same problem, and, it's NOT the way I'm running traceroute! (e.g., it's not ICMP vs TCP, etc.). It's also not that the server I'm pinging is down, or slow. There's something wrong with "my" home networking setup. But what? I just want to UNDERSTAND the problem. That's it. It makes NO sense what I've been seeing over the past year. Basically, for months at a time, I can't connect to centos.org and, for months at a time, I can connect to the web site. When I can't connect, traceroute (ICMP or TCP) fails to connect; when I can connect, traceroute also connects. So, it isn't HOW I'm running traceroute, as traceroute is telling me exactly what Firefox is telling me. This happens for months at a time, and has happened about five times in the past two years. I change NOTHING (not my router firewall, not my computer firewall, not my networking setup, etc.) in the interim. When this happens, I switch to TOR, and I can EASILY connect to centos.org via the proxy Firefox - so there's nothing wrong with my firewall or with my home broadband router (as far as I can tell). When I can't connect, I ask my NEIGHBORS who "can" get to centos.org to show me their traceroute, and it looks the same as mine except for the fact that their times are slightly faster and they get past that last hop - whereas mine dies at the penultimate hop. So, THAT would implicate something on "my" side (but what?). I switch to Knoppix 7, and I get the same result. I go to a Windows PC, and I get the same result. So, it's NOT the PC! If I knew how to get around my router, I would, but it has all the setup for the ISP (it's a WISP, not cable or DSL). My question? How can I debug WHY (for months at a time), I can't get to a web site? Here's a traceroute run just now: knoppix@Microknoppix:~$ traceroute www.centos.org traceroute to www.centos.org (72.232.194.162), 30 hops max, 60 byte packets 1 192.168.1.1 (192.168.1.1) 2.835 ms 2.809 ms 20.293 ms 2 REDACTED_WISP.net (xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx) 20.280 ms 20.265 ms 20.248 ms 3 10.50.0.1 (10.50.0.1) 29.973 ms 29.959 ms 29.943 ms 4 10.25.0.1 (10.25.0.1) 39.067 ms 42.759 ms 42.745 ms 5 10.20.0.1 (10.20.0.1) 82.295 ms 82.280 ms 82.265 ms 6 10.0.0.1 (10.0.0.1) 122.956 ms 159.675 ms 159.654 ms 7 69.36.226.193 (69.36.226.193) 198.537 ms 201.445 ms 201.433 ms 8 vl2.core1.scl.layer42.net (69.36.225.129) 201.423 ms 201.412 ms 201.388 ms 9 216.156.84.141.ptr.us.xo.net (216.156.84.141) 201.377 ms 201.361 ms 201.346 ms 10 207.88.14.233.ptr.us.xo.net (207.88.14.233) 239.215 ms 239.185 ms 239.171 ms 11 vb15.rar3.dallas-tx.us.xo.net (207.88.12.45) 239.137 ms 239.122 ms 239.061 ms 12 207.88.14.34.ptr.us.xo.net (207.88.14.34) 239.030 ms 123.544 ms 178.276 ms 13 207.88.185.74.ptr.us.xo.net (207.88.185.74) 178.261 ms 178.264 ms 178.231 ms 14 border1.pc2-bbnet2.dal004.pnap.net (216.52.191.81) 178.234 ms border1.pc1-bbnet1.dal004.pnap.net (216.52.191.19) 178.187 ms border1.pc2-bbnet2.dal004.pnap.net (216.52.191.81) 178.199 ms 15 layered-11.border1.dal004.pnap.net (63.251.44.74) 178.171 ms 178.139 ms 178.123 ms 16 * * * 17 * * * 18 * * * 19 * * * 20 * * * 21 * * * 22 * * * 23 * * * 24 * * * 25 * * * 26 * * * 27 * * * 28 * * * 29 * * * 30 * * * I know, from two years of experiencing this, that the hop after the last hop showing resuls "is" Centos.org! So, when it works, it gets to the last hop; but when it dies, it always dies at just before the last hop. But why? Can you help me UNDERSTAND why/how this situation can be happening? Note: All other web sites work just fine. NOTE: I already know that YOU will be able to access this same site with much lower ping times (you're not on a WISP either) - but that doesn't help ME figure out what the problem is. Is there freeware extant to help me UNDERSTAND why this happens to me?
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Gary R. Schmidt" <grschmidt@acm.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-10-08 15:37 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <goecia-tpo.ln1@paranoia.mcleod-schmidt.id.au> |
| In reply to | #2403 |
On 8/10/2013 2:32 PM, billy wrote: > Why can't I connect (via port 80 or any port) to a certain web site? [SNIP] There is no freeware, or any sort of software available to you, that can help with your problem. There is a "black hole" between you and centos.org. Packets go in, but do not come out, that's what the traceroute is telling you. Contact your ISP, and provide them with the traceroute, they then need to pass that to their (various) upstream connections to get the problem solved. I would assume that the problem lies with "pnap.net", who- or what-ever they are, but they probably won't talk to you. Your WISP appears to be connecting to "layer42" (69.36.226.193) as their gateway to the internet, again, they won't talk to you, but your ISP should be able to get them off their arses. Cheers, Gary B-) -- When men talk to their friends, they insult each other. They don't really mean it. When women talk to their friends, they compliment each other. They don't mean it either.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | billy <billy@is.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-10-09 14:26 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <l349im$f2$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #2404 |
Gary R. Schmidt wrote: > There is a "black hole" between you and centos.org. > Packets go in, but do not come out > I would assume that the problem lies with "pnap.net", > Your WISP appears to be connecting to "layer42" (69.36.226.193) All this makes perfect sense, except ... Except my neighbors, on the same WISP, can get to centos.org. So, it must be something in 'my' setup; but where? More specifically, how do I diagnose to pinpoint where?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Keusch <fwd+usenet-spam2013q4-1381444031@spam2013q4.bsd-solutions-duesseldorf.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-10-10 22:32 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnl5eaoc.7bk.fwd+usenet-spam2013q4-1381444031@keus02.synserver.de> |
| In reply to | #2431 |
On 2013-10-09, billy <billy@is.invalid> wrote: > Gary R. Schmidt wrote: > >> There is a "black hole" between you and centos.org. >> Packets go in, but do not come out >> I would assume that the problem lies with "pnap.net", >> Your WISP appears to be connecting to "layer42" (69.36.226.193) > > All this makes perfect sense, except ... > > Except my neighbors, on the same WISP, can get to centos.org. > > So, it must be something in 'my' setup; but where? > > More specifically, how do I diagnose to pinpoint where? Does your firewall block ICMP coming from the outside? If yes, stop doing that, and research PMTUD. Best regards Thomas -- * Freelance Linux & BSD Systemengineer // IT Consultant * -=- Homepage: http://www.bsd-solutions-duesseldorf.de -=-
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Hough <noone$$@llondel.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-10-08 07:30 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <uclcia-a42.ln1@llondel.org> |
| In reply to | #2403 |
billy wrote: > Why can't I connect (via port 80 or any port) to a certain web site? > > For more than a year I've had the same problem, and, it's NOT > the way I'm running traceroute! (e.g., it's not ICMP vs TCP, etc.). > It's also not that the server I'm pinging is down, or slow. > > There's something wrong with "my" home networking setup. > But what? > Is it an MTU/fragmentation issue? (Check out ping -M) Dave
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris Davies <chris-usenet@roaima.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-10-08 19:32 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <anvdiax31m.ln2@news.roaima.co.uk> |
| In reply to | #2405 |
In comp.os.linux.networking David Hough <noone$$@llondel.org> wrote: > billy wrote: >> Why can't I connect (via port 80 or any port) to a certain web site? > Is it an MTU/fragmentation issue? (Check out ping -M) This is exactly what I would have suggested. Data packets have a maximum size dependent on the transport layer carrying them. The default size is typically 1500 for ethernet, and a little less for connections running over PPP and/or VPN. Some long distance WAN links can have even lower maximum packet sizes. If a packet cannot be transmitted in its entirety, it can be split (fragmented) unless the sender has specified that it must not be split. If it can't be split then the sender is responsible for transmitted the data in smaller sized packets, but obviously the sender needs to be informed that the packet size must be reduced. If there's a dubious firewall somewhere between you and the target - one that (incorrectly) eats the ICMP fragmentation request packets - then your sender can't realise that it needs to reduce the packet size, and such packets inevitably get dropped. You can test this with ping -M, as David Hough has suggested. You can also reduce your own MTU and see whether this "fixes" the problem. Try "ifconfig eth0 mtu 1400", and experiment with different values. Chris
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-10-08 23:16 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <l31p66$bfj$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #2407 |
On 8.10.13 9:32 , Chris Davies wrote: > In comp.os.linux.networking David Hough <noone$$@llondel.org> wrote: >> billy wrote: >>> Why can't I connect (via port 80 or any port) to a certain web site? > >> Is it an MTU/fragmentation issue? (Check out ping -M) > > This is exactly what I would have suggested. Data packets have a maximum > size dependent on the transport layer carrying them. The default size is > typically 1500 for ethernet, and a little less for connections running > over PPP and/or VPN. Some long distance WAN links can have even lower > maximum packet sizes. If a packet cannot be transmitted in its entirety, > it can be split (fragmented) unless the sender has specified that it > must not be split. If it can't be split then the sender is responsible > for transmitted the data in smaller sized packets, but obviously the > sender needs to be informed that the packet size must be reduced. If > there's a dubious firewall somewhere between you and the target - > one that (incorrectly) eats the ICMP fragmentation request packets - > then your sender can't realise that it needs to reduce the packet size, > and such packets inevitably get dropped. > > You can test this with ping -M, as David Hough has suggested. You can > also reduce your own MTU and see whether this "fixes" the problem. Try > "ifconfig eth0 mtu 1400", and experiment with different values. > > Chris TCP should be able to find a suitable segment size, but it needs an ICMP message for the functionality. There are sysadmins killing all ICMP, in an attempt to hide from ICMP echo (ping). This could be the cause here. -- Tauno Voipio
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | billy <billy@is.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-10-09 17:39 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <l344d5$gh9$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #2408 |
On Tue, 08 Oct 2013 23:16:05 +0300, Tauno Voipio wrote: > TCP should be able to find a suitable segment size, but it needs > an ICMP message for the functionality. There are sysadmins killing > all ICMP, in an attempt to hide from ICMP echo (ping). This could > be the cause here. What I don't understand is whether the web browser, which is the problem observed, is using ICMP or TCP. Q: What is the web browser using? (ICMP? TCP?)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mike Easter <MikeE@ster.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-10-09 11:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bblli5FpunoU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #2424 |
billy wrote: > Tauno Voipio wrote: > >> TCP should be able to find a suitable segment size, but it needs >> an ICMP message for the functionality. There are sysadmins killing >> all ICMP, in an attempt to hide from ICMP echo (ping). This could >> be the cause here. > > What I don't understand is whether the web browser, which is the > problem observed, is using ICMP or TCP. > > Q: What is the web browser using? (ICMP? TCP?) TCP. But the 'process' involves TCP/IP. It would be of value for you to learn about the protocols. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_protocol_suite The article breaks down the different layers of the suite. But your 'breakdown' is more than just the browser, so you should also understand the protocols used by your tools of investigation. Standard ping = ICMP (also there is UDP pinger) traceroute and tracert also can come in 'flavors' ICMP, UDP, and TCP Some hop obstructions or 'holes' are related to protocol. -- Mike Easter
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | billy <billy@is.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-10-09 18:52 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <l348m1$rst$3@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #2426 |
On Wed, 09 Oct 2013 11:28:22 -0700, Mike Easter wrote: >> Q: What is the web browser using? (ICMP? TCP?) > > TCP. But the 'process' involves TCP/IP. Hi Mike, So, if the web browser is what is failing, and if the debug commands using TCP also fail, what value is there in everyone saying that ICMP is dropped? What does ICMP have to do with the web browser failing? That is, why is everyone suggesting I test ICMP when the failure of the web browser is the problem I'm trying to test? I don't understand why ICMP has 'anything' directly to do with the web browser failing (other than ICMP also fails).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-10-09 22:47 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <l34bsr$pkq$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #2428 |
On 9.10.13 9:52 , billy wrote: > On Wed, 09 Oct 2013 11:28:22 -0700, Mike Easter wrote: > >>> Q: What is the web browser using? (ICMP? TCP?) >> >> TCP. But the 'process' involves TCP/IP. > > Hi Mike, > > So, if the web browser is what is failing, and if the > debug commands using TCP also fail, what value is there > in everyone saying that ICMP is dropped? > > What does ICMP have to do with the web browser failing? > > That is, why is everyone suggesting I test ICMP when the > failure of the web browser is the problem I'm trying to > test? > > I don't understand why ICMP has 'anything' directly to do > with the web browser failing (other than ICMP also fails). PLEASE do get a text on TCP, read and understand it. It explains the usage. ICMP is a helper protocol inside the TCP/IP protocol suite. TCP uses ICMP to detect a suitable segment (transmission block) size. Your web browser needs UDP for name resolution, TCP for page transfer and ICMP to help TCP work, and all run using IP. Can you ping the target from your computer? It works perfectly from here: --- clip clip --- tauno-voipios-macbook-pro-2:~ tauno$ ping centos.org PING centos.org (72.232.194.162): 56 data bytes 64 bytes from 72.232.194.162: icmp_seq=0 ttl=52 time=161.925 ms 64 bytes from 72.232.194.162: icmp_seq=1 ttl=52 time=164.736 ms c64 bytes from 72.232.194.162: icmp_seq=2 ttl=52 time=161.303 ms 64 bytes from 72.232.194.162: icmp_seq=3 ttl=52 time=165.196 ms 64 bytes from 72.232.194.162: icmp_seq=4 ttl=52 time=165.483 ms ^C --- clip clip --- I can also access the web site with a browser. -- Tauno Voipio -- Tauno Voipio
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | billy <billy@is.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-10-09 20:50 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <l34fiq$ie6$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #2432 |
On Wed, 09 Oct 2013 22:47:22 +0300, Tauno Voipio wrote: > Your web browser needs UDP for name resolution, TCP for > page transfer and ICMP to help TCP work, and all run > using IP. > Can you ping the target from your computer? > It works perfectly from here: I know it works for you as it works for everyone but me. 1. ping fails every time on www.centos.org 2. traceroute shows the penultimate hop is where it dies It makes no sense. And, it works for my neighbor, who is on the same WISP. He says my times are longer than his, which is the only delta. The only thing my neighbor could think of was maybe my transit times are so long that packets are discarded at some point. I'll bet your transit times are much better than mine, right? Does *that* transit-time theory make any sense?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-10-09 21:30 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <PVj5u.32327$Zd1.15268@fx22.iad> |
| In reply to | #2432 |
On 2013-10-09, Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> wrote: > On 9.10.13 9:52 , billy wrote: >> On Wed, 09 Oct 2013 11:28:22 -0700, Mike Easter wrote: >> >>>> Q: What is the web browser using? (ICMP? TCP?) >>> >>> TCP. But the 'process' involves TCP/IP. >> >> Hi Mike, >> >> So, if the web browser is what is failing, and if the >> debug commands using TCP also fail, what value is there >> in everyone saying that ICMP is dropped? >> >> What does ICMP have to do with the web browser failing? >> >> That is, why is everyone suggesting I test ICMP when the >> failure of the web browser is the problem I'm trying to >> test? >> >> I don't understand why ICMP has 'anything' directly to do >> with the web browser failing (other than ICMP also fails). > > > PLEASE do get a text on TCP, read and understand it. > It explains the usage. > > ICMP is a helper protocol inside the TCP/IP protocol suite. > TCP uses ICMP to detect a suitable segment (transmission > block) size. > > Your web browser needs UDP for name resolution, TCP for > page transfer and ICMP to help TCP work, and all run > using IP. But he has stated that they all work on other web sites. Only on centos.org do they fail, apparently. > > Can you ping the target from your computer? He says he cannot, although he keeps showing the output of traceroute rather than ping. > > It works perfectly from here: > > --- clip clip --- > > tauno-voipios-macbook-pro-2:~ tauno$ ping centos.org > PING centos.org (72.232.194.162): 56 data bytes > 64 bytes from 72.232.194.162: icmp_seq=0 ttl=52 time=161.925 ms > 64 bytes from 72.232.194.162: icmp_seq=1 ttl=52 time=164.736 ms > c64 bytes from 72.232.194.162: icmp_seq=2 ttl=52 time=161.303 ms > 64 bytes from 72.232.194.162: icmp_seq=3 ttl=52 time=165.196 ms > 64 bytes from 72.232.194.162: icmp_seq=4 ttl=52 time=165.483 ms > ^C > > --- clip clip --- > > I can also access the web site with a browser. Yes, he also says that his neighbors have no problem either. So it is something peculiar to the interaction between his machine and that particular site. -- eg firewall on centos which rejects him. Firewall on his side which rejects the far response. (probably he should make sure that all firewalls are disabled and try to contact them, just to rule out the firewall on his machines.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | billy <billy@is.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-10-10 01:05 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <l34usc$kjo$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #2443 |
unruh wrote: > he also says that his neighbors have no problem either. IIRC, when I had asked my neighbors, they had fewer hops to the same destination - so - I'm beginning to wonder if it's the sheer number of hops (or the time involved); but that's just a guess. I'd be glad to post traceroute or ping results to ANY server you suggest, so we can compare with you. I'll also ask a neighbor to send me his traceroutes and post them when/if I get them.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | billy <billy@is.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-10-10 01:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <l34v31$kjo$3@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #2443 |
unruh wrote:
>> Can you ping the target from your computer?
>
> He says he cannot, although he keeps showing the output of traceroute
> rather than ping.
The ping is useless. Either that or I'm using it wrong.
Here's the cut and paste for the pings on Knoppix:
# ping -M icmp centos.org
ping: wrong value for -M: do, dont, want are valid ones.
# ping --help
ping: invalid option -- '-'
Usage: ping [-LRUbdfnqrvVaAD] [-c count] [-i interval] [-w deadline]
[-p pattern] [-s packetsize] [-t ttl] [-I interface]
[-M pmtudisc-hint] [-m mark] [-S sndbuf]
[-T tstamp-options] [-Q tos] [hop1 ...] destination
# # ping www.centos.org
PING www.centos.org (72.232.194.162) 56(84) bytes of data.
^C
--- www.centos.org ping statistics ---
286 packets transmitted, 0 received, 100% packet loss, time 285212ms
(strangely it took minutes to time out on Knoppix so I killed it).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-10-09 19:51 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <iti5u.43475$I35.16782@fx01.iad> |
| In reply to | #2428 |
On 2013-10-09, billy <billy@is.invalid> wrote: > On Wed, 09 Oct 2013 11:28:22 -0700, Mike Easter wrote: > >>> Q: What is the web browser using? (ICMP? TCP?) >> >> TCP. But the 'process' involves TCP/IP. > > Hi Mike, > > So, if the web browser is what is failing, and if the > debug commands using TCP also fail, what value is there > in everyone saying that ICMP is dropped? > > What does ICMP have to do with the web browser failing? > > That is, why is everyone suggesting I test ICMP when the > failure of the web browser is the problem I'm trying to > test? > > I don't understand why ICMP has 'anything' directly to do > with the web browser failing (other than ICMP also fails). BEcause you were also worried about the problem of traceroute failing and/or ping failing. You could try telnet centos.com 80 (or whatever the address is) to see if there is any response (QUIT should get you out) eg info:0.0[unruh]>telnet centos.com 80 Trying 87.106.187.200... Connected to centos.com (87.106.187.200). Escape character is '^]'. QUIT <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD HTML 2.0//EN"> <html><head> <title>501 Method Not Implemented</title> </head><body> <h1>Method Not Implemented</h1> <p>QUIT to /index.html not supported.<br /> </p> </body></html> Connection closed by foreign host. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | billy <billy@is.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-10-09 20:42 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <l34f48$h0r$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #2433 |
On Wed, 09 Oct 2013 19:51:42 +0000, unruh wrote: >> I don't understand why ICMP has 'anything' directly to do` >> with the web browser failing (other than ICMP also fails). > > BEcause you were also worried about the problem of > traceroute failing and/or ping failing. This is very true. Maybe it's my fault for bringing up traceroute & ping in the first place; but they're the only freeware tools for debugging the network that I know of. Clearly they're doing the *same* thing as the web is, which is they're all dying at the penultimate hop before www.centos.org I did say, in my very first post, that I was pretty sure the problem had nothing to do with the *way* I was running the tools (since the problem is independent of those tools). > You could try > telnet centos.com 80 $ telnet www.centos.org 80 Trying 72.232.194.162... <==== it hangs here for a minute or two telnet: connect to address 72.232.194.162: Connection timed out The problem is that NOTHING will connect to www.centos.org that comes from me. If I use TOR, everything works fine. THAT is what I'm trying to debug. But, I don't know how.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | ~BD~ <~BD~@nomail.afraid.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-10-09 22:09 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <4eednVX70_aaW8jPnZ2dnUVZ8kidnZ2d@bt.com> |
| In reply to | #2435 |
billy wrote:
> On Wed, 09 Oct 2013 19:51:42 +0000, unruh wrote:
>
>>> I don't understand why ICMP has 'anything' directly to do`
>>> with the web browser failing (other than ICMP also fails).
>>
>> BEcause you were also worried about the problem of
>> traceroute failing and/or ping failing.
>
> This is very true.
>
> Maybe it's my fault for bringing up traceroute & ping
> in the first place; but they're the only freeware tools
> for debugging the network that I know of.
>
> Clearly they're doing the *same* thing as the web is,
> which is they're all dying at the penultimate hop
> before www.centos.org
>
> I did say, in my very first post, that I was pretty sure
> the problem had nothing to do with the *way* I was running
> the tools (since the problem is independent of those tools).
>
>> You could try
>> telnet centos.com 80
>
> $ telnet www.centos.org 80
> Trying 72.232.194.162... <==== it hangs here for a minute or two
> telnet: connect to address 72.232.194.162: Connection timed out
>
> The problem is that NOTHING will connect to www.centos.org
> that comes from me. If I use TOR, everything works fine.
>
> THAT is what I'm trying to debug.
> But, I don't know how.
Have you been in touch here as suggested by Pooh?
Technical Contact:
Internap Network Services Corporation
Domain Administrator
One Ravinia Drive Suite 1300
Atlanta, GA 30346
US
Phone: +1.8778434662
Email: noc@internap.com
If not, WHY not?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | billy <billy@is.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-10-10 01:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <l34uv8$kjo$2@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #2438 |
~BD~ wrote: > Have you been in touch here as suggested by Pooh? > > Technical Contact: > Internap Network Services Corporation > Domain Administrator > One Ravinia Drive Suite 1300 > Atlanta, GA 30346 > US > Phone: +1.8778434662 > Email: noc@internap.com > > If not, WHY not? I have sent all the email addresses on that list an email. I will write back if/when they respond. I don't have high hopes that they will - but - they might. I gave them the unedited traceroute results just like I gave you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | ~BD~ <~BD~@nomail.afraid.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-10-10 07:41 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <F8udneQ68qyD0cvPnZ2dnUVZ8judnZ2d@bt.com> |
| In reply to | #2461 |
billy wrote: > ~BD~ wrote: > >> Have you been in touch here as suggested by Pooh? >> >> Technical Contact: >> Internap Network Services Corporation >> Domain Administrator >> One Ravinia Drive Suite 1300 >> Atlanta, GA 30346 >> US >> Phone: +1.8778434662 >> Email: noc@internap.com >> >> If not, WHY not? > > I have sent all the email addresses on that list an email. > I will write back if/when they respond. > I don't have high hopes that they will - but - they might. > > I gave them the unedited traceroute results just like I gave you. Good luck, Billy! :-) I can just *feeeeeel* your frustration. Maddening, for sure!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 7 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.networking
csiph-web