ICMP vs UDP. See my last post.
On 2/21/06, Craig FALCONER <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Sounds like telnor.net is blocking stuff. > > Try mtr and see if it works. I can get to 200.76.246.66 without loosing > anything if I use mtr..... > > My traceroute [v0.69] > socks (0.0.0.0)(tos=0x0 psize=64 bitpattern=0x00) Wed Feb > 22 09:00:22 2006 > Keys: Help Display mode Restart statistics Order of fields quit > Packets > Pings > Host Loss% Snt Last Avg > Best Wrst StDev > 1. lemonsqueezer.avonside.school.nz 0.0% 24 0.3 0.3 > 0.2 0.4 0.0 > 2. fe7-4-515-1.bertha.paradise.net.nz 0.0% 24 9.5 10.1 > 8.8 12.7 1.1 > 3. 203.96.153.102 4.2% 24 12.8 15.1 > 12.8 20.5 1.6 > 4. pe14-bertha.paradise.net.nz 0.0% 23 15.6 14.2 > 10.5 21.3 2.3 > 5. 203.167.223.129 0.0% 23 11.8 13.8 > 10.8 19.9 2.1 > 6. ge0-1-0-938.icore1.sym.telstraclear.net 0.0% 23 27.2 26.3 > 23.6 33.2 2.0 > 7. ge-0-2-0-1.xcore1.acld.telstraclear.net 0.0% 23 25.4 24.4 > 22.2 28.8 1.8 > 8. ge-0-2-0-914.xcore2.acld.telstraclear.net 0.0% 23 26.1 25.8 > 22.7 41.3 3.9 > 9. so.jb.wils.telstraclear.net 0.0% 23 159.8 154.4 > 149.2 162.1 4.8 > 10. 65.244.201.221 0.0% 23 150.0 150.8 > 147.8 155.5 1.7 > 11. GigabitEthernet3-0.GW1.LAX1.ALTER.NET 0.0% 23 153.8 151.6 > 148.0 158.1 2.2 > 12. 0.so-0-0-0.XL2.LAX1.ALTER.NET 0.0% 23 149.4 156.1 > 148.4 215.7 13.7 > 13. 0.so-6-0-0.CL2.LAX15.ALTER.NET 0.0% 23 153.4 152.7 > 149.3 159.1 2.6 > 14. POS5-0.GW1.LAX15.ALTER.NET 0.0% 23 151.0 152.4 > 148.4 162.5 3.5 > 15. wcgGigELAX-gw.customer.alter.net 0.0% 23 164.3 165.4 > 161.5 172.9 3.0 > 16. anhmca1wcx2-pos6-1-oc48.wcg.net 0.0% 23 167.2 165.5 > 160.9 175.3 3.7 > 17. anhmca1wcx4-pos6-0.wcg.net 0.0% 23 164.9 164.4 > 161.6 170.3 2.7 > 18. telmex-anhmca1wcx4-pos-10-0-wcg.net 0.0% 23 165.9 165.9 > 163.4 171.0 1.9 > 19. red-corp-200.76.250.45.telnor.net 0.0% 23 321.1 323.2 > 321.1 328.1 1.6 > 20. red-corp-200.38.27.94.telnor.net 0.0% 23 319.5 318.4 > 315.6 320.9 1.4 > 21. red-corp-200.38.8.70.telnor.net 0.0% 23 328.6 329.0 > 326.8 334.9 2.0 > 22. red-corp-200.76.246.66.telnor.net 0.0% 23 335.9 334.7 > 330.7 347.4 3.5 > > ...but if I use traceroute I get this: > > > socks:~# traceroute 200.76.246.66 > traceroute to 200.76.246.66 (200.76.246.66), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets > 1 lemonsqueezer (192.168.1.1) 0.494 ms 0.277 ms 0.283 ms > 2 fe7-4-515-1.bertha.paradise.net.nz (202.0.37.1) 10.919 ms 11.620 ms > 14.394 ms > 3 203.96.153.102 (203.96.153.102) 16.474 ms 15.097 ms 16.545 ms > 4 pe14-bertha.paradise.net.nz (203.96.155.226) 12.527 ms 12.516 ms > 13.195 ms > 5 203.167.223.129 (203.167.223.129) 13.993 ms 14.111 ms 12.632 ms > 6 ge0-1-0-938.icore1.sym.telstraclear.net (203.98.48.1) 26.604 ms 25.879 > ms 24.655 ms > 7 ge-0-2-0-1.xcore1.acld.telstraclear.net (203.98.50.251) 27.084 ms > 24.410 ms 24.100 ms > 8 ge-0-2-0-914.xcore2.acld.telstraclear.net (203.98.42.18) 26.674 ms > 24.462 ms 25.942 ms > 9 so.jb.wils.telstraclear.net (203.98.42.66) 151.823 ms 153.014 ms > 149.533 ms > 10 65.244.201.221 (65.244.201.221) 151.059 ms 150.438 ms 150.465 ms > 11 GigabitEthernet3-0.GW1.LAX1.ALTER.NET (157.130.245.21) 151.583 ms > 148.077 ms 150.594 ms > 12 0.so-0-0-0.XL2.LAX1.ALTER.NET (152.63.112.214) 154.385 ms 150.544 ms > 149.351 ms > 13 0.so-6-0-0.CL2.LAX15.ALTER.NET (152.63.10.222) 153.938 ms 154.141 ms > 149.308 ms > 14 POS5-0.GW1.LAX15.ALTER.NET (152.63.115.213) 154.119 ms 149.706 ms > 156.302 ms > 15 wcgGigELAX-gw.customer.alter.net (157.130.42.202) 164.367 ms 165.480 > ms 172.955 ms > 16 anhmca1wcx2-pos6-1-oc48.wcg.net (64.200.140.161) 163.032 ms 163.138 ms > 162.029 ms > 17 anhmca1wcx4-pos6-0.wcg.net (64.200.141.94) 162.788 ms 162.340 ms > 163.445 ms > 18 telmex-anhmca1wcx4-pos-10-0-wcg.net (64.200.224.150) 166.515 ms > 175.247 ms 171.111 ms > 19 red-corp-200.76.250.45.telnor.net (200.76.250.45) 321.772 ms 327.205 > ms 323.200 ms > 20 red-corp-200.38.27.94.telnor.net (200.38.27.94) 317.589 ms 325.669 ms > 317.674 ms > 21 red-corp-200.38.8.70.telnor.net (200.38.8.70) 329.632 ms 327.279 ms > 328.071 ms > 22 * * * > 23 * * * > 24 * * * > etc > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Kim C. Callis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, 22 February 2006 8:33 a.m. > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [pfSense-discussion] [OT] Networking help > > > I have been using iperf to test between between the pfsense > connection that I have and another pfsense server that I run > at another location. But there is nothing to do to check the > connection else were. > > Even when I do a traceroute from the pfsense server local to > me to the second pfsense server, it gets lost trying to get > a full response.. > > # traceroute 200.76.246.66 > traceroute to 200.76.246.66 (200.76.246.66), 64 hops max, 40 > byte packets > 1 red-corp-200.56.96.177.telnor.net (200.56.96.177) 2.328 > ms 2.295 ms 2.404 ms > 2 red-corp-200.23.251.193.telnor.net (200.23.251.193) > 5.743 ms 5.815 ms 5.861 ms > 3 red-corp-200.76.250.13.telnor.net (200.76.250.13) 6.157 > ms 12.360 ms 6.203 ms > 4 red-corp-200.38.27.94.telnor.net (200.38.27.94) 8.108 > ms 8.945 ms 8.150 ms > 5 red-corp-200.38.8.70.telnor.net (200.38.8.70) 18.049 ms > 16.959 ms 19.318 ms > 6 * * * > 7 * * * > 8 * * * > 9 * * * > * * * > > So it makes for difficulties to really analyze what is going > on. > > K. > > On Tue, Feb 21, 2006 at 12:57:51PM -0600, Nick Buraglio wrote: > >Also understand that testing commodity internet access is very > >nebulous. So many things can affect the path. In my opinion the > >best way to test throughput is using iperf, to do so would require a > >host on either end running it. If you plan on testing using iperf > >I'd suggest testing in stages; Last mile, provider, some facility > >that has decent connectivity, etc.. > >How are you testing? > > > > > >On Feb 21, 2006, at 12:52 PM, Nick Buraglio wrote: > > > >>Take it out and test without it. If the results are the same then > >>you can point at them. Why is the Cisco in there? If I'm > >>understand correctly, you have: > >> > >>[some internet connecton] <=> [Cisco 2500] <=> [pfSense box] <=> [LAN] > >> > >>Is the cisco doing some kind of routing? What is the model of the > >>first box? > >> > >> > >>nb > >> > >> > >>On Feb 21, 2006, at 10:47 AM, Kim C. Callis wrote: > >> > >>>I have pfsense connected to a Cisco 2500 for the WAN > >>>connection. Attached to the Cisco via a high speed serial > >>>cable to a box that say World DSL. I can't get any specifics > >>>on the capabilities of the DSL box. When I did telnet the > >>>box, I get connected to another Cisco router which I cannot > >>>access. > >>> > >>>Allegedly, the connection is suppose to be an E-1 (2048 > >>>kbit/sec), but the speeds on my end fluctuates between > >>>800K-1100K/sec down and 40K-300K/sec up. I suspect that the > >>>connection to the Cisco that I have access to is actually > >>>some ADSL connection. > >>> > >>>Of course, the ISP that I am consulting with is blaming > >>>pfsense. What can I do to prove that pfSense it working > >>>optimally and the problem is with the telco? > >>> > >>>Any pointer would be greatly appreciated! > >>> > >>>K. > >>> > >> > >
