[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: basic ping diff with windows ping

Camaleón on 26/10/10 07:04, wrote:
On Mon, 25 Oct 2010 23:37:44 +0100, Adam Hardy wrote:

Camaleón on 25/10/10 11:04, wrote:

Seriously slightly quirky, but now it's better than windows again,
which is the way it should be.
The only thing it could make a difference between Windows "tracert" and
Linux "traceroute" is iptables but I 'm not sure about that (how can
iptables interfere with traceroute, by blocking/filtering packets? :-?)
I didn't mean linux traceroute was quirky in execution - I just meant
the options were not ideal for me. The dumbed-down version on windows
was just right for my abilities and knowledge and what I wanted. But
then if I hadn't used the windows traceroute first I might never have
developed such preconceptions.

Well, Windows traceroute defaults to icmp while linux one seems to be using udp which can be problematic with firewalls, so the windows counterpart is a bit more "sensible" for today's routing diagnostics.

But true is that there is a slightly difference in the output we get from a windows box traceroute and linux so besides the traceroute utility itself there must be something in between which interferes/alters the results.

I collated them in a spreadsheet just to check and I can't see any difference. I think if you were talking about the tracert output I showed before they were probably taken at different times completely.

L	2	0.534ms
W	2	1ms
L	3	5.801ms
W	3	6ms
L	4	7.764ms
W	4	7ms
L	5	5.998ms
W	5	7ms
L	6	5.803ms
W	6	*
L	7	6.017ms
W	7	6ms
L	8	acc1-10GigE-0-7-0-5.l-far.21cn-ipp.bt.net	6.241ms
W	8	acc1-10GigE-0-7-0-5.l-far.21cn-ipp.bt.net	7ms
L	9	core2-te0-14-4-0.ealing.ukcore.bt.net	7.884ms
W	9	core2-te0-14-4-0.ealing.ukcore.bt.net	8ms
L	10	transit2-xe1-1-0.ealing.ukcore.bt.net	6.886ms
W	10	transit2-xe1-1-0.ealing.ukcore.bt.net	7ms
L	11	t2c2-ge8-0-0.uk-eal.eu.bt.net	6.695ms
W	11	t2c2-ge8-0-0.uk-eal.eu.bt.net	8ms
L	12	7.236ms
W	12	14ms
L	13	ae-32-52.ebr2.London2.Level3.net	17.483ms
W	13	ae-32-56.ebr2.London2.Level3.net	17ms
L	14	ae-3-3.ebr1.London1.Level3.net	7.583ms
W	14	ae-3-3.ebr1.London1.Level3.net	8ms
L	15	ae-100-100.ebr2.London1.Level3.net	6.965ms
W	15	ae-100-100.ebr2.London1.Level3.net	8ms
L	16	ae-43-43.ebr1.NewYork1.Level3.net	75.931ms
W	16	ae-43-43.ebr1.NewYork1.Level3.net	77ms
L	17	ae-4-4.ebr1.NewYork2.Level3.net	75.984ms
W	17	ae-4-4.ebr1.NewYork2.Level3.net	77ms
L	18	ae-1-51.edge2.NewYork2.Level3.net	81.317ms
W	18	ae-1-51.edge2.NewYork2.Level3.net	77ms
L	19	mci-level3-xe.newyork2.Level3.net	75.777ms
W	19	mci-level3-xe.newyork2.Level3.net	159ms
L	20	0.ae2.XL4.NYC4.ALTER.NET	75.614ms
W	20	0.ae2.XL4.NYC4.ALTER.NET	76ms
L	21	0.so-7-1-0.XL4.BOS4.ALTER.NET	83.228ms
W	21	0.so-7-1-0.XL4.BOS4.ALTER.NET	84ms
L	22	POS7-0-0.GW12.BOS4.ALTER.NET	83.296ms
W	22	POS7-0-0.GW12.BOS4.ALTER.NET	84ms
L	23	interactivebrokers-gw.customer.alter.net	91.274ms
W	23	interactivebrokers-gw.customer.alter.net	93ms
L	24	mktgw1.ibllc.com	91.077ms
W	24	mktgw1.ibllc.com	92ms

Reply to: