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 2 192.168.1.1 0.534ms W 2 192.168.1.1 1ms L 3 217.32.146.168 5.801ms W 3 217.32.146.168 6ms L 4 217.32.146.222 7.764ms W 4 217.32.146.222 7ms L 5 213.120.177.58 5.998ms W 5 213.120.177.58 7ms L 6 213.120.176.62 5.803ms W 6 213.120.176.62 * L 7 213.120.176.182 6.017ms W 7 213.120.176.182 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 12 195.50.91.153 7.236ms W 12 195.50.91.153 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