Re: ping vs. traceroute

[fiaid@quasi-sane.com]

np.  i had to remember this once as well.  drove me nuts for a while.

> Ah, thanks. Yup, -I is the switch. 
> 
> eks
> 
> On Tue, 10 Dec 2002 fiaid@quasi-sane.com wrote:
> 
> > that you are using the udp version of traceroute and not the icmp.  there 
> > should be a switch for this.  :)
> > 
> > tighe
> > 
> > > Hi,
> > >   I'm hunting down some problems here, and I was wondering what it means 
> > > when one can ping something, but not traceroute to the same address?
> > > 
> > > traceroute to 10.180.1.10 (10.180.1.10), 30 hops max, 38 byte packets
> > >  1  192.168.1.1  0.340 ms  0.248 ms  0.243 ms
> > >  2  10.180.1.2  1.844 ms  10.940 ms  1.928 ms
> > >  3  10.180.1.6  12.359 ms  12.355 ms  12.354 ms
> > >  4  * * *
> > >  5  *
> > > ^c
> > > [erich@vrmuseum erich]$ ping 10.180.1.10
> > > PING 10.180.1.10 (10.180.1.10) from 192.168.1.184 : 56(84) bytes of data.
> > > 64 bytes from 10.180.1.10: icmp_seq=1 ttl=61 time=22.1 ms
> > > 64 bytes from 10.180.1.10: icmp_seq=2 ttl=61 time=12.3 ms
> > > 64 bytes from 10.180.1.10: icmp_seq=3 ttl=61 time=12.3 ms
> > > 64 bytes from 10.180.1.10: icmp_seq=4 ttl=61 time=12.5 ms
> > > 
> > > 
> > > eks
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 

-- 
Tighe Schlottog         workape         fiaid
"Nothing is too cruel if it is funny enough."


-
To unsubscribe, send email to majordomo@silug.org with
"unsubscribe silug-discuss" in the body.