-
From: Kurt Buff [mailto:kurt.b...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2012 3:57 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Curious networking anomaly in Win7 Pro box
True, but at this point it's beyond my control, so emotional
investment in the outcome is pointless..
On Wed, Feb 1
:)
-Original Message-
From: Kurt Buff [mailto:kurt.b...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 2:33 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Curious networking anomaly in Win7 Pro box
Oh, I'm no Spock - that's a hard-learned lesson for me, with
occasional reminders needed.
BTW
The trace routes weren't informative?
-Original Message-
From: Kurt Buff [mailto:kurt.b...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 4:21 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Curious networking anomaly in Win7 Pro box
Not dropping in the sense you mean - I'd still see
: Kurt Buff [mailto:kurt.b...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 4:21 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Curious networking anomaly in Win7 Pro box
Not dropping in the sense you mean - I'd still see a traceroute or
other ICMP packets in tcpdump, but they wouldn't go anywhere.
More
...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 4:21 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Curious networking anomaly in Win7 Pro box
Not dropping in the sense you mean - I'd still see a traceroute or
other ICMP packets in tcpdump, but they wouldn't go anywhere.
More to the point, pings
The suspense is killing me... :)
-Original Message-
From: Kurt Buff [mailto:kurt.b...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2012 2:08 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Curious networking anomaly in Win7 Pro box
I've just learned that he's on the road on an emergency service
Subject: Re: Curious networking anomaly in Win7 Pro box
I've just learned that he's on the road on an emergency service call.
I may not hear from him for days...
Kurt
On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 06:41, Kim Longenbaugh k...@colonialsavings.com
wrote:
The trace routes weren't informative
... :)
-Original Message-
From: Kurt Buff [mailto:kurt.b...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2012 2:08 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Curious networking anomaly in Win7 Pro box
I've just learned that he's on the road on an emergency service call.
I may not hear from him
On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 3:49 PM, Kim Longenbaugh
k...@colonialsavings.com wrote:
I've just learned that he's on the road on an emergency service call.
I may not hear from him for days...
The suspense is killing me... :)
That reminds me of:
http://www.gifbin.com/982501
;-) (No offense
Hahahaha, the old see other side joke for the information age.
-Original Message-
From: Ben Scott [mailto:mailvor...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2012 3:06 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Curious networking anomaly in Win7 Pro box
On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 3:49 PM
System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Curious networking anomaly in Win7 Pro box
I've just learned that he's on the road on an emergency service call.
I may not hear from him for days...
Kurt
On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 06:41, Kim Longenbaugh k...@colonialsavings.com
wrote:
The trace
Well said, Mr. Spock
-Original Message-
From: Kurt Buff [mailto:kurt.b...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2012 3:57 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Curious networking anomaly in Win7 Pro box
True, but at this point it's beyond my control, so emotional
investment
Compare trace routes from the anomalous machine to the devices you can connect
to with trace routes to the ones you can't.
Check firewall logs for drops.
-Original Message-
From: Kurt Buff [mailto:kurt.b...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 12:56 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
No drops at the firewall.
Forgot to have him do a traceroute - the firewall doesn't allow
traceroutes to pass through it, so that doesn't usually occur to me,
but in this case it would prove useful.
I'll have him try that.
Kurt
On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 11:04, Kim Longenbaugh
Doesn't this imply you are dropping at least some ICMP at the firewall, then?
On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 3:45 PM, Kurt Buff kurt.b...@gmail.com wrote:
No drops at the firewall.
Forgot to have him do a traceroute - the firewall doesn't allow
traceroutes to pass through it, so that doesn't usually
On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 1:55 PM, Kurt Buff kurt.b...@gmail.com wrote:
We put Wireshark on this machine, and it thinks its emitting the ICMP
packets, but when I fired up tcpdump on the internal interface of the
firewall for his office, I verified that it was not seeing packets for
those
Not dropping in the sense you mean - I'd still see a traceroute or
other ICMP packets in tcpdump, but they wouldn't go anywhere.
More to the point, pings to multiple addresses on the same remote
subnet are treated the same, and when he's doing the unsuccessful
pings, there's nothing in tcpdump -
On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 14:20, Ben Scott mailvor...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 1:55 PM, Kurt Buff kurt.b...@gmail.com wrote:
We put Wireshark on this machine, and it thinks its emitting the ICMP
packets, but when I fired up tcpdump on the internal interface of the
firewall for
On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 14:20, Ben Scott mailvor...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 1:55 PM, Kurt Buff kurt.b...@gmail.com wrote:
We put Wireshark on this machine, and it thinks its emitting the ICMP
packets, but when I fired up tcpdump on the internal interface of the
firewall for
On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 6:51 PM, Kurt Buff kurt.b...@gmail.com wrote:
I just confirmed, it's happening to the customer when he's
wireless-only as well as wired-only. (he's staying up late tonight,
working from home, and answering emails. That's dedication for you...)
Wait, does that mean
On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 15:54, Ben Scott mailvor...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 6:51 PM, Kurt Buff kurt.b...@gmail.com wrote:
I just confirmed, it's happening to the customer when he's
wireless-only as well as wired-only. (he's staying up late tonight,
working from home, and
On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 6:11 PM, Kurt Buff kurt.b...@gmail.com wrote:
It's one subnet for everything in that office, with the firewall as
the gateway, no managed switch (I've been trying for years to get one
there).
Okay, so, basically, one big collision domain, one dumb switch. A
wireless
On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 16:33, Ben Scott mailvor...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 6:11 PM, Kurt Buff kurt.b...@gmail.com wrote:
It's one subnet for everything in that office, with the firewall as
the gateway, no managed switch (I've been trying for years to get one
there).
That might be the only real way to do it sounds like something went wrong
during the upgrade process from XP to 7.
Jon
On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 7:43 PM, Kurt Buff kurt.b...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 16:33, Ben Scott mailvor...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 6:11 PM,
On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 7:43 PM, Kurt Buff kurt.b...@gmail.com wrote:
Okay, so, basically, one big collision domain, one dumb switch. A
wireless access point plugged into the switch. Firewall/router
plugged into that same switch. Yah?
Broadcast domain, but yes, you are correct.
Er,
On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 17:25, Ben Scott mailvor...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 7:43 PM, Kurt Buff kurt.b...@gmail.com wrote:
Okay, so, basically, one big collision domain, one dumb switch. A
wireless access point plugged into the switch. Firewall/router
plugged into that same
26 matches
Mail list logo
