If you have static addressing (biz account) then possibly different from what I have.
In North NJ, 3 different accounts I can verify have ICMP blocked as of sometime earlier this year or late last year so have to use udp to get a real traceroute. Could not be deployed in all areas the same way. - Javier On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 7:19 AM Nimrod Levy <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm in the same region as Chris and I still can't make it fail. I wonder > if it's because I have static addressing? > > On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 11:59 PM Christopher Morrow < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 11:44 PM Lee <[email protected]> wrote: >> > It's protocol specific. Windows tracert uses icmp instead of udp. >> > On a linux box try >> > ping -t 2 205.132.109.90 >> > >> > You should get a time to live exceeded but the Verizon router gives >> > you an echo reply instead. >> >> that's hilariously bad :( I think this is the OLT really that's doing >> this... >> $ ping -t 3 205.132.109.90 >> PING 205.132.109.90 (205.132.109.90) 56(84) bytes of data. >> From 130.81.32.236 icmp_seq=1 Time to live exceeded >> >> $ ping -t 1 205.132.109.90 >> PING 205.132.109.90 (205.132.109.90) 56(84) bytes of data. >> From 192.168.100.1 icmp_seq=1 Time to live exceeded >> >> $ ping -t 2 205.132.109.90 >> PING 205.132.109.90 (205.132.109.90) 56(84) bytes of data. >> 64 bytes from 205.132.109.90: icmp_seq=1 ttl=254 time=3.38 ms >> >> An outbound traceroute has: >> 1 _gateway (192.168.100.1) 2.537 ms 2.587 ms 2.703 ms >> 2 * * * >> 3 B3320.WASHDC-LCR-21.verizon-gni.net (130.81.32.236) 6.638 ms >> B3320.WASHDC-LCR-22.verizon-gni.net (130.81.32.238) 6.223 ms 6.414 >> ms >> ... >> >> and inbound that hop 2 is: >> 6 HundredGigE2-4-0-3.WASHDC-LCR-22.verizon-gni.NET (140.222.238.55) >> 5.504 ms HundredGigE2-6-0-3.WASHDC-LCR-21.verizon-gni.NET >> (140.222.234.53) 9.261 ms 9.266 ms >> 7 ae203-0.WASHDC-VFTTP-320.verizon-gni.net () 7.955 ms 3.026 ms >> ae204-0.WASHDC-VFTTP-320.verizon-gni.net (130.81.32.239) 2.347 ms >> >> oh well, just wonky gpon again? >> >
