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 2 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 Next page →
| From | unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-10-09 21:36 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <I%j5u.55838$D22.29258@fx27.iad> |
| In reply to | #2435 |
On 2013-10-09, billy <billy@is.invalid> wrote: > >> 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. Well, a firewall might be rejecting you or the reply. Switch off all firewalls-- on your machine, your router, etc to see if that might be the problem. (switch them on again after the test) > > THAT is what I'm trying to debug. > But, I don't know how. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mike Easter <MikeE@ster.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-10-09 15:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bbm4vfFt6r8U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #2428 |
billy wrote: > 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? Personally when I'm troubleshooting something I take into account the fact that some hops handle ICMP, UDP, and TCP differently. One of my preferred tools for testing access to a server is Steve Gibson's IDServe which runs under windows or WINE in linux and doesn't require installation in either. For this target I would be using TCP port 80 on/at the webserver at centos. The tool shows my system resolving the IP and connecting to the webserver there. Initiating server query ... Looking up IP address for domain: www.centos.org The IP address for the domain is: 72.232.194.162 Connecting to the server on standard HTTP port: 80 [Connected] Requesting the server's default page. The server returned the following response headers: [redact html from the centos Apache server] Query complete. > I don't understand why ICMP has 'anything' directly to do > with the web browser failing (other than ICMP also fails). From the other info you've posted here, your system when not reaching centos on port 80 TCP IDServe would show you resolving the name but not connecting, which IDServe interprets as the server being stealthed or not online, so its use wouldn't add anything to this particular problem's solution; but I mention it as an indication that 'typically' I don't use an ICMP tool to test some TCP-related server issues. -- Mike Easter
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-10-10 00:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <Qkm5u.25654$3G3.22158@fx15.iad> |
| In reply to | #2449 |
On 2013-10-09, Mike Easter <MikeE@ster.invalid> wrote: > billy wrote: >> 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? > > Personally when I'm troubleshooting something I take into account the > fact that some hops handle ICMP, UDP, and TCP differently. One of my > preferred tools for testing access to a server is Steve Gibson's IDServe > which runs under windows or WINE in linux and doesn't require > installation in either. > > For this target I would be using TCP port 80 on/at the webserver at > centos. The tool shows my system resolving the IP and connecting to the > webserver there. Which was why I suggested telnet centos.org 80 but that did not return anything for him. Everyone else in the world has no trouble connecting but he does and he wants to know why. > > Initiating server query ... > Looking up IP address for domain: www.centos.org > The IP address for the domain is: 72.232.194.162 > Connecting to the server on standard HTTP port: 80 > [Connected] Requesting the server's default page. > The server returned the following response headers: > [redact html from the centos Apache server] > Query complete. > >> I don't understand why ICMP has 'anything' directly to do >> with the web browser failing (other than ICMP also fails). > > From the other info you've posted here, your system when not reaching > centos on port 80 TCP IDServe would show you resolving the name but not > connecting, which IDServe interprets as the server being stealthed or > not online, so its use wouldn't add anything to this particular > problem's solution; but I mention it as an indication that 'typically' I > don't use an ICMP tool to test some TCP-related server issues. > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | billy <billy@is.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-10-10 00:19 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <l34s6h$f5n$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #2451 |
unruh wrote: > Which was why I suggested > telnet centos.org 80 > but that did not return anything for him. > Everyone else in the world has > no trouble connecting but he does and he wants to know why. That's a perfect summary! I can't imagine that I'm singled out in this world for not connecting, for months at a time, to centos.org (it happened with one other web site - but it was so long ago that I've forgotten which it was). One question I have is WHICH site is dropping my packets? Is it the last site that returns traceroute values? Os is it the first site that has all asterisks? # traceroute -M icmp 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) 2.840 ms 2.832 ms 2.829 ms 2 MYIPADDRESS (xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx) 2.827 ms 5.830 ms 5.834 ms 3 10.50.0.1 (10.50.0.1) 9.369 ms 14.568 ms 14.566 ms 4 10.25.0.1 (10.25.0.1) 14.562 ms 18.614 ms 18.610 ms 5 10.20.0.1 (10.20.0.1) 79.603 ms 83.180 ms 83.177 ms 6 10.0.0.1 (10.0.0.1) 454.682 ms 251.479 ms 251.450 ms 7 69.36.226.193 (69.36.226.193) 251.420 ms 402.683 ms 402.652 ms 8 vl2.core1.scl.layer42.net (69.36.225.129) 402.624 ms 397.148 ms 397.127 ms 9 216.156.84.141.ptr.us.xo.net (216.156.84.141) 397.107 ms 284.336 ms 284.314 ms 10 207.88.14.233.ptr.us.xo.net (207.88.14.233) 287.164 ms 153.090 ms 162.910 ms 11 vb15.rar3.dallas-tx.us.xo.net (207.88.12.45) 162.878 ms 156.560 ms 156.544 ms 12 207.88.14.34.ptr.us.xo.net (207.88.14.34) 156.516 ms 2751.856 ms 2751.839 ms 13 207.88.185.74.ptr.us.xo.net (207.88.185.74) 2586.242 ms 97.179 ms 97.152 ms 14 border1.pc1-bbnet1.dal004.pnap.net (216.52.191.19) 97.123 ms border1.pc2-bbnet2.dal004.pnap.net (216.52.191.81) 74.418 ms border1.pc1-bbnet1.dal004.pnap.net (216.52.191.19) 87.348 ms 15 layered-11.border1.dal004.pnap.net (63.251.44.74) 87.329 ms 65.781 ms 120.012 ms 16 * * * 17 * * * 18 * * * 19 * * * 20 * * * 21 * * * 22 * * * 23 * * * 24 * * * 25 * * * 26 * * * 27 * * * 28 * * * 29 * * * 30 * * * # Is it hop 15 or 16 above which is dropping my packets?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | billy <billy@is.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-10-10 00:33 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <l34sv0$g9b$2@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #2449 |
Mike Easter wrote: > I mention it as an indication that 'typically' I > don't use an ICMP tool to test some TCP-related server issues. I'm beginning to wonder if anything after about 15 hops is dropping the connection for me? Could it be that the path to centos.org just happens to be longer than any other path I've tried? The path to the centos bug server you gave me worked fine, but it only took 15 hops. Do you have a way for me to pick somewhere far far away from San Francisco CA to see if it's simply the long path that is causing the problem (i.e., more than 16 hops)?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | billy <billy@is.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-10-09 10:54 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <l33d02$8vo$2@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #2407 |
Chris Davies wrote: > the sender is responsible for transmitted the > data in smaller sized packets Hi Chris, I posted my "traceroute -M centos.org" results because I truly want to UNDERSTAND what is going on. If the problem is that my packets are too large, how does one control that in a web browser? The ping is merely my diagnostic tool. The *real* problem is that, for months at a time, I can't connect (via any web browser not on TOR) to: http://centos.org With TOR, I can connect easily - so it's not the Centos site itself. QUESTION: How do I control packet size in Firefox?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | billy <billy@is.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-10-09 11:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <l33ds9$btr$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #2407 |
Chris Davies wrote:
> 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.
Hi Chris,
I appreciate your help as I'm trying to UNDERSTAND the problem,
which is that, for months on end, I can't connect via the web
to http://centos.org where a traceroute shows that the penultimate
connection is dropping me. (So I am forced to use TOR and all
works fine - albeit slowly.)
Then, for months at a time, I *can* connect to centos.org,
where the traceroute shows the connection going through.
Googling for what an MTU is, I see it's the max size of a packet:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximum_transmission_unit
Ethernet has an MTU limit, it appears, of 1500 bytes, so I can
see why you're suggesting 1400 bytes.
I don't have much ethernet in the picture though, as I'm on
a laptop connected by WiFi to my home broadband router which
itself is wired by POE to a rooftop antenna which goes over
WiFi about five miles to the WISP antenna where I lose control.
So, I assume you would want me to modify that command:
ifconfig eth0 mtu 1400
To:
"ifconfig wlan0 mtu 1400
Here's what ifconfig just reported:
# ifconfig
eth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:a0:00:3a:4f:23
UP BROADCAST MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1
RX packets:0 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
TX packets:0 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000
RX bytes:0 (0.0 B) TX bytes:0 (0.0 B)
Interrupt:11 Memory:f2600000-f2620000
wlan0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:a0:00:6a:9b:3d
inet addr:192.168.1.2 Bcast:192.168.1.255 Mask:255.255.255.0
UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1
RX packets:267437 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
TX packets:167343 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000
RX bytes:311152648 (296.7 MiB) TX bytes:29413063 (28.0 MiB)
So I ran the following:
# ifconfig wlan0 mtu 1400
# ifconfig wlan0
wlan0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:a0:00:6a:9b:3d
inet addr:192.168.1.2 Bcast:192.168.1.255 Mask:255.255.255.0
UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1400 Metric:1
RX packets:267437 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
TX packets:167343 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000
RX bytes:311152648 (296.7 MiB) TX bytes:29413063 (28.0 MiB)
And, then I tried to connect via Firefox to centos.org, but it still
timed out.
Should I change the mtu even further down, say, to 1000 so that
Firefox can connect to http://www.centos.org?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "ps56k" <pschuman_no5pam_m3@interserv.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-10-10 16:34 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <l376hq$anj$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #2413 |
Your basic problem in this entire discussion is that you have no concept of the very basics in networking - called - a protocol stack - Here is the TCP/IP version - Application (like email, browser, etc) Transport (specify ports on computers) Internet (addressing & routing) Link (physical) The browser lives at the very top - as an Application and has NO knowledge of ANY protocol issues at the lower layers. So, to keep asking about how the fix the browser is meaningless. The lower layers are where TCP (Transport Control Protocol) and the IP (Internet Protocol) address live. Next - is the physical and link.... this is the magic of "transmit" and "receive" - SO - some routers and website might turn of their responses to ICMP messages (ping/echo etc) and it might appear they are not responding to those tools - but in fact - they are "ignoring" them. On the topic of MTU (the size of the packets transmitted) I have never had a website not respond, but have had probs with a school system called Blackboard that would not function properly on a DSL line due to a MTU being less than the Blackboard required value of 1500. WEIRD - I can ping and traceroute to --> centos.org but it does NOT reply to my browser request ?? This page cannot be displayed due to an internal error. If you are the administrator of this site, please visit the Xoops Troubleshooting Page for assistance. Error [Xoops]: Unable to connect to database in file class/database/databasefactory.php line 34
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-10-10 22:40 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <w1G5u.30599$z05.8447@fx28.iad> |
| In reply to | #2481 |
On 2013-10-10, ps56k <pschuman_no5pam_m3@interserv.com> wrote: > Your basic problem in this entire discussion > is that you have no concept of the very basics in networking - > called - a protocol stack - He may not have, but it is irrelevant. He is not able to connect. Can you give him the cause? Can you suggest how he fix it? It is like if you brought me your car to fix and I told you that you had no concept of the basics of the Standard Model of particle phyics as if such knowledge would help you fix your car. > > WEIRD - > I can ping and traceroute to --> centos.org > but it does NOT reply to my browser request ?? And you now call this weird. I thought you had an intimate knowledge of the protocol layers. Why is this weird? Note that I have absolutely no trouble connecting to centos.org. > > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "ps56k" <pschuman_no5pam_m3@interserv.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-10-10 18:27 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <l37d5f$f86$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #2486 |
this is an interesting discussion -
you mean like -
please fix my car - the lugnuts don't fit into the key slot - so I can't
start it -
"different layers" - but guess I'll just keep throwing tech words around...
weird - yup -
it times out from my network - and other "online testing sites" -
so... ????
Ping - centos.org - 85.12.30.227 --> Amsterdam
Ping - www.centos.org - 72.232.194.162 ---> ????
So, where does the - 72.232.194.162 come from ??
vs my DNS lookup is showing 85.12.30.227 ??
2 NS1.LAYEREDTECH.COM 72.232.1.236
AUTH 0 ms Received 1 Answers , rcode=
PTR: PointerName=www.centos.org,
cname:www.centos.org
Lookup failed after 1 name server timed out or responded non-authoritatively
-----------
Here's his traceroute run:
knoppix@Microknoppix:~$ traceroute www.centos.org
traceroute to www.centos.org (72.232.194.162), 30 hops max, 60 byte
----------
HopCount IP Address HostName
1 208.123.79.34 net208-123-79-34.static-customer.corenap.com
2 198.252.182.180 aus-core-10-v12.corenap.com
3 24.155.184.106 xe-0-0-2-509.AUSTTXMIM002.aggr09.austtx.grandecom.net
4 24.155.121.76 xe-0-0-0-0.aggr08.austtx.grandecom.net
5 4.30.74.53 ae5-868.edge9.Dallas1.Level3.net
6 4.69.145.200 ae-4-90.edge3.Dallas1.Level3.net
7 4.71.170.6 LAYERED-TEC.edge3.Dallas1.Level3.net
8 * * * * * *
9 72.232.194.162 www.centos.org
---------
their TCP/IP world seems messed up somewhere within their DNS records -
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-10-10 16:49 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <52573D03.8010607@thadlabs.com> |
| In reply to | #2490 |
On 10/10/2013 4:27 PM, ps56k wrote: > [...] > > Ping - centos.org - 85.12.30.227 --> Amsterdam > Ping - www.centos.org - 72.232.194.162 ---> ???? > > So, where does the - 72.232.194.162 come from ?? > vs my DNS lookup is showing 85.12.30.227 ?? > [...] Here (Silicon Valley over Comcast's High Speed Internet) a 'ping centos.org' and a ping 'www.centos.org' both resolve to 85.12.30.227 a 'whois 72.232.194.162' reveals it's Akamai, a worldwide service for faster Internet used by all the majors: Google, fecebook, etc. per: NetRange: 172.224.0.0 - 172.239.255.255 CIDR: 172.224.0.0/12 OriginAS: NetName: AKAMAI NetHandle: NET-172-224-0-0-1 Parent: NET-172-0-0-0-0 NetType: Direct Assignment RegDate: 2013-03-15 Updated: 2013-03-15 Ref: http://whois.arin.net/rest/net/NET-172-224-0-0-1 OrgName: Akamai Technologies, Inc. OrgId: AT-80 Address: 8 Cambridge Center Address: MS 926-G City: Cambridge StateProv: MA PostalCode: 02142 Country: US RegDate: 2011-10-19 Updated: 2012-01-26 Ref: http://whois.arin.net/rest/org/AT-80 OrgAbuseHandle: MHA379-ARIN OrgAbuseName: Hannigan, Martin OrgAbusePhone: +1-617-444-2535 OrgAbuseEmail: ip-admin@akamai.com OrgAbuseRef: http://whois.arin.net/rest/poc/MHA379-ARIN OrgTechHandle: MHA379-ARIN OrgTechName: Hannigan, Martin OrgTechPhone: +1-617-444-2535 OrgTechEmail: ip-admin@akamai.com OrgTechRef: http://whois.arin.net/rest/poc/MHA379-ARIN
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | billy <billy@is.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-10-11 00:40 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <l37hpb$ofa$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #2491 |
Thad Floryan wrote: > Here (Silicon Valley over Comcast's High Speed Internet) > a 'ping centos.org' and a ping 'www.centos.org' both > resolve to 85.12.30.227 A fortuituous circumstance has occurred. I can now connect to centos.org, via the web, ping, traceroute, etc! I do NOT know what changed. Here's what happened in the interim: 1. I wrote to the related sysadmins (I did not receive a response) 2. I changed my MTU (but it made no difference) 3. I changed machines (Win7, Centos, & Knoppix) which made no difference 4. I changed the TTL which also made no difference Yet, look below. The route is completely different! # ping www.centos.org PING www.centos.org (85.12.30.227) 56(84) bytes of data. 64 bytes from 85.12.30.227: icmp_req=1 ttl=44 time=236 ms 64 bytes from 85.12.30.227: icmp_req=2 ttl=44 time=165 ms 64 bytes from 85.12.30.227: icmp_req=3 ttl=44 time=164 ms 64 bytes from 85.12.30.227: icmp_req=4 ttl=44 time=169 ms 64 bytes from 85.12.30.227: icmp_req=5 ttl=44 time=180 ms ^C --- www.centos.org ping statistics --- 6 packets transmitted, 5 received, 16% packet loss, time 5043ms rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 164.682/183.212/236.535/27.238 ms # telnet www.centos.org 80 Trying 85.12.30.227... Connected to www.centos.org. Escape character is '^]'. HEAD / HTTP/1.0 HTTP/1.1 200 OK Server: nginx/0.8.55 Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 00:45:11 GMT Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Connection: close X-Powered-By: PHP/4.3.9 Set-Cookie: PHPSESSID=2170e308a49222dbe637c509e5c60702; path=/ Expires: Mon, 26 Jul 1997 05:00:00 GMT Cache-Control: private, no-cache Pragma: no-cache Connection closed by foreign host. # traceroute -M icmp www.centos.org traceroute to www.centos.org (85.12.30.227), 30 hops max, 60 byte packets 1 192.168.1.1 (192.168.1.1) 2.834 ms 2.827 ms 2.831 ms 2 67-218-118-85.ridgewireless.net (67.218.118.85) 2.836 ms 2.834 ms 5.724 ms 3 10.50.0.1 (10.50.0.1) 9.067 ms 17.504 ms 17.501 ms 4 10.25.0.1 (10.25.0.1) 17.497 ms 24.062 ms 24.060 ms 5 10.20.0.1 (10.20.0.1) 33.210 ms 33.209 ms 33.207 ms 6 10.0.0.1 (10.0.0.1) 42.110 ms 27.157 ms 95.411 ms 7 69.36.226.193 (69.36.226.193) 126.784 ms 17.564 ms 83.245 ms 8 vl2.core2.scl.layer42.net (69.36.225.130) 83.220 ms 25.765 ms 75.471 ms 9 xe-0-0-0-22.r07.snjsca04.us.bb.gin.ntt.net (140.174.21.101) 92.593 ms 17.517 ms 57.495 ms 10 te0-4-0-32.ccr21.sjc03.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.10.49) 61.049 ms te0-7-0-32.ccr21.sjc03.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.11.85) 50.591 ms 98.951 ms 11 be2000.ccr21.sjc01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.6.105) 101.595 ms be2047.ccr22.sjc01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.5.113) 25.443 ms be2000.ccr21.sjc01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.6.105) 31.126 ms 12 be2164.ccr21.sfo01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.28.33) 31.098 ms be2167.mpd22.sfo01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.28.77) 23.081 ms be2164.ccr21.sfo01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.28.33) 106.955 ms 13 be2132.ccr21.mci01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.30.54) 121.000 ms be2135.mpd22.mci01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.6.34) 125.153 ms be2132.ccr21.mci01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.30.54) 125.125 ms 14 be2156.ccr21.ord01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.6.86) 125.095 ms be2159.mpd22.ord01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.24.82) 98.844 ms be2156.ccr21.ord01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.6.86) 98.816 ms 15 be2079.ccr21.yyz02.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.27.182) 108.449 ms 104.541 ms be2140.ccr22.bos01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.43.186) 118.863 ms 16 be2091.ccr22.ymq02.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.44.98) 118.831 ms be2090.ccr21.ymq02.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.30.206) 105.995 ms te0-1-0-1.ccr22.lpl01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.42.106) 173.380 ms 17 te0-5-0-6.ccr22.lpl01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.87.57) 165.254 ms be2183.ccr22.ams03.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.58.70) 181.351 ms te0-4-0-6.ccr21.lpl01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.44.202) 191.954 ms 18 be2183.ccr22.ams03.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.58.70) 203.543 ms te0-3-0-12.mag21.ams03.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.78.213) 176.249 ms be2183.ccr22.ams03.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.58.70) 179.087 ms 19 10ge-2-3.cr1.ams3.baseip.com (149.6.128.198) 182.827 ms te0-3-0-12.mag21.ams03.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.78.213) 179.250 ms 10ge-2-3.cr1.ams3.baseip.com (149.6.128.198) 193.421 ms 20 10ge-2-3.cr1.ams3.baseip.com (149.6.128.198) 176.902 ms 85.12.30.227 (85.12.30.227) 164.817 ms 10ge-2-3.cr1.ams3.baseip.com (149.6.128.198) 217.757 ms I'm not sure why the traaceroute is much longer, and, it stopped before Centos.org, but, the proof is in the taste of the pudding in that a Firefox connection to http://www.centos.org works all of a sudden. Q: What changed?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Keusch <fwd+usenet-spam2013q4-1381456101@spam2013q4.bsd-solutions-duesseldorf.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-10-11 01:50 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnl5emaq.een.fwd+usenet-spam2013q4-1381456101@keus02.synserver.de> |
| In reply to | #2492 |
On 2013-10-11, billy <billy@is.invalid> wrote: > Thad Floryan wrote: > >> Here (Silicon Valley over Comcast's High Speed Internet) >> a 'ping centos.org' and a ping 'www.centos.org' both >> resolve to 85.12.30.227 > > A fortuituous circumstance has occurred. > I can now connect to centos.org, via the web, ping, traceroute, etc! > I do NOT know what changed. > Here's what happened in the interim: > 1. I wrote to the related sysadmins (I did not receive a response) > 2. I changed my MTU (but it made no difference) > 3. I changed machines (Win7, Centos, & Knoppix) which made no difference > 4. I changed the TTL which also made no difference > > Yet, look below. The route is completely different! > # ping www.centos.org > PING www.centos.org (85.12.30.227) 56(84) bytes of data. > 64 bytes from 85.12.30.227: icmp_req=1 ttl=44 time=236 ms [...] > Q: What changed? You're now talking to another IP, i.e. probably another system. Someone in this thread noted that the other IP was with Akamai. Probably some remains of a torn down accelleration setup? Who knows. Best regards Thomas -- * Freelance Linux & BSD Systemengineer // IT Consultant * -=- Homepage: http://www.bsd-solutions-duesseldorf.de -=-
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | billy <billy@is.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-10-11 03:24 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <l37rd6$bac$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #2497 |
Thomas Keusch wrote: > You're now talking to another IP, > i.e. probably another system. > Someone in this thread noted that the other IP was > with Akamai. > Probably some remains of a torn down accelleration setup? > Who knows. If I understand you correctly, what you're saying is that yesterday, Centos.org was hosted on 72.232.194.162 while, today, it's hosted on 85.12.30.227. For some reason, I couldn't get to 72.232.194.162 yesterday, while my neighbors could get to it; but, today, I only need to get to 85.12.30.227, which works fine for me. I just tried pinging 72.232.194.162, and it fails to return. A traceroute to that same IP address still fails today. # traceroute -M icmp 72.232.194.162 traceroute to 72.232.194.162 (72.232.194.162), 30 hops max, 60 byte packets 1 192.168.1.1 (192.168.1.1) 2.849 ms 2.839 ms 2.839 ms 2 67-218-118-85.ridgewireless.net (67.218.118.85) 8.476 ms 8.477 ms 8.474 ms 3 10.50.0.1 (10.50.0.1) 8.468 ms 15.442 ms 15.442 ms 4 10.25.0.1 (10.25.0.1) 62.623 ms 62.631 ms 62.629 ms 5 10.20.0.1 (10.20.0.1) 68.657 ms 68.654 ms 68.652 ms 6 10.0.0.1 (10.0.0.1) 99.906 ms 36.198 ms 45.997 ms 7 69.36.226.193 (69.36.226.193) 45.960 ms 22.838 ms 39.756 ms 8 vl2.core1.scl.layer42.net (69.36.225.129) 39.747 ms 21.573 ms 25.054 ms 9 216.156.84.141.ptr.us.xo.net (216.156.84.141) 25.035 ms 43.099 ms 43.074 ms 10 207.88.14.233.ptr.us.xo.net (207.88.14.233) 101.938 ms 74.301 ms 76.448 ms 11 vb15.rar3.dallas-tx.us.xo.net (207.88.12.45) 76.430 ms 108.260 ms 108.219 ms 12 207.88.14.34.ptr.us.xo.net (207.88.14.34) 108.186 ms 60.969 ms 65.956 ms 13 207.88.185.74.ptr.us.xo.net (207.88.185.74) 70.441 ms 124.382 ms 126.699 ms 14 border1.pc1-bbnet1.dal004.pnap.net (216.52.191.19) 126.680 ms border1.pc2-bbnet2.dal004.pnap.net (216.52.191.81) 69.193 ms border1.pc1-bbnet1.dal004.pnap.net (216.52.191.19) 69.171 ms 15 layered-11.border1.dal004.pnap.net (63.251.44.74) 69.140 ms 97.227 ms 102.727 ms 16 * * * 17 * * * 18 * * * 19 * * * 20 * * * 21 * * * 22 * * * 23 * * * 24 * * * 25 * * * 26 * * * 27 * * * 28 * * * 29 * * * 30 * * * So, I guess all that changed is that Centos.org moved servers, and, well, the original server (of yesterday) was unreachable by me, but most of you (and my neighbors) could reach it. At least this moving of servers can explain why my ability to reach the server comes and goes - but - what I still don't get is why I couldn't (and can't) reach the old server and all of you guys could.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dyrmak <dyrmak@orange.fr.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-10-11 08:50 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <l38e4e$il6$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #2499 |
En 62 lignes billy a écrit dans news:l37rd6$bac$1@speranza.aioe.org le vendredi, 11 octobre 2013 à 05:24:53 : > > So, I guess all that changed is that Centos.org moved servers, and, well, > the original server (of yesterday) was unreachable by me, but most of you > (and my neighbors) could reach it. > > At least this moving of servers can explain why my ability to reach > the server comes and goes - but - what I still don't get is why I couldn't > (and can't) reach the old server and all of you guys could. Could it be DNS problem you are having on your own ? When the problem occurs http://@IP might give confirmation. If your router is mtu-modifiable lower it to 150 thereabouts along with your network card and see what happens. dyrmak -- Sólo sé que nada sé ++++ --- ++++ Linux operating system ++++ --- ++++
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | billy <billy@is.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-10-11 14:26 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <l3924p$5ke$2@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #2507 |
dyrmak wrote: > Could it be DNS problem you are having on your own ? > When the problem occurs http://@IP might give confirmation. > If your router is mtu-modifiable lower it to 150 thereabouts > along with your network card and see what happens. DNS? Hmmm... would switching DNS servers affect the route taken? I'll try that, but, putting the IP address in the URL does not help. For example, http://85.12.30.227/ does the same thing as does http://www.centos.org as does http://centos.org
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-10-11 16:03 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <EjV5u.89380$7A4.15260@fx23.iad> |
| In reply to | #2510 |
On 2013-10-11, billy <billy@is.invalid> wrote: > dyrmak wrote: > >> Could it be DNS problem you are having on your own ? >> When the problem occurs http://@IP might give confirmation. >> If your router is mtu-modifiable lower it to 150 thereabouts >> along with your network card and see what happens. > > DNS? Hmmm... would switching DNS servers affect the route taken? > I'll try that, but, putting the IP address in the URL does not help. A red herring. The dns simply translates names to IP addresses. It does not do anything else and certainly does not alter routes (unless the address changes). > > For example, http://85.12.30.227/ does the same thing as does > http://www.centos.org as does http://centos.org > > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | billy <billy@is.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-10-11 20:19 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <l39mqt$rel$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #2517 |
unruh wrote: > The dns simply translates names to IP addresses. > It does not do anything else and certainly does > not alter routes (unless the address changes). To update, the only small victory I can report is that, for some reason, the RADIO on the roof (which is equivalent to your DSL/Cable modem) *can* ping & traceroute to centos.org but the computers in the house can not. That would imply it's the Netgear WNDR router, but, I updated it to the latest firmware and looked at all the settings, and changed a few (e.g., the MTU) but it didn't have any positive effect. a. I can't access centos.org from any computer by any method. b. I *can* ping/traceroute centos.org from the rooftop radio. What gets me is that the Netgear WNDR router is pretty much set up just like anyone would have set it up for a home. I left everything at the defaults other than what absolutely had to be changed to give it WPA2-PSK and a static IP address for the radio (which the WISP gives me). Is there any particular setting you think I should check on the Netgear WNDR3200 router that might be the culprit?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-10-11 20:38 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <QkZ5u.42082$kP3.18681@fx04.iad> |
| In reply to | #2520 |
On 2013-10-11, billy <billy@is.invalid> wrote: > unruh wrote: > >> The dns simply translates names to IP addresses. >> It does not do anything else and certainly does >> not alter routes (unless the address changes). > > To update, the only small victory I can report is that, for > some reason, the RADIO on the roof (which is equivalent to > your DSL/Cable modem) *can* ping & traceroute to centos.org > but the computers in the house can not. > > That would imply it's the Netgear WNDR router, but, I updated > it to the latest firmware and looked at all the settings, and > changed a few (e.g., the MTU) but it didn't have any positive > effect. > a. I can't access centos.org from any computer by any method. > b. I *can* ping/traceroute centos.org from the rooftop radio. > > What gets me is that the Netgear WNDR router is pretty much > set up just like anyone would have set it up for a home. I left > everything at the defaults other than what absolutely had to > be changed to give it WPA2-PSK and a static IP address for > the radio (which the WISP gives me). > > Is there any particular setting you think I should check on the > Netgear WNDR3200 router that might be the culprit? > Well, I do not know if you can do it on your router, but you could try a tcpdump at the router of the packet sent to centos.or when you ping it from your machine and when you ping it from your router to see what the difference is. Of course, your router might not have tcpdump capability, but comparing those would seem to me to be the only way. You could capture a ping packet, say, from your computer and post it (I believe it is only 80 bytes long) and maybe someone can see something funny in it. I cannot. centos does respond to pings, I have tried it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-10-11 21:34 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <l39gat$suf$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #2510 |
On 11.10.13 5:26 , billy wrote: > dyrmak wrote: > >> Could it be DNS problem you are having on your own ? >> When the problem occurs http://@IP might give confirmation. >> If your router is mtu-modifiable lower it to 150 thereabouts >> along with your network card and see what happens. > > DNS? Hmmm... would switching DNS servers affect the route taken? > I'll try that, but, putting the IP address in the URL does not help. > > For example, http://85.12.30.227/ does the same thing as does > http://www.centos.org as does http://centos.org No, but you're talking of two different IP addresses, and IP addresses are the only things routing cares about. When you supply the name of a website, it gets translated to an IP address by DNS. If you get two different IP's, it is quite natural that they may have different routes, and only one of the sites responds. Many Web servers do also care of the name of the target site supplied also in the HTTP protocol headers. This is how there can be many websites under the same IP. -- -Tauno
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.networking
csiph-web