[155376] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: next hop packet loss
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jim Ray)
Mon Aug 6 18:38:31 2012
From: "Jim Ray" <jim@neuse.net>
In-Reply-To: <50203C33.9040506@ninjabadger.net>
Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2012 18:37:58 -0400
To: "Tom Hill" <tom@ninjabadger.net>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
It is a problem with http protocol regardless of ICMP.=20
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 6, 2012, at 5:51 PM, "Tom Hill" <tom@ninjabadger.net> wrote:
> Hi Jim,
>=20
> On 06/08/12 22:27, Jim Ray wrote:
>> What is the best way to solve this type of problem?
>=20
> It's not a problem, it's checkpoint purporting to be 'secure' when all the=
y're doing is blocking ICMP outright, seemingly.
>=20
> If I try 'tcptraceroute' (from Linux) it works just fine, bare the Above.n=
et hop in the middle that doesn't respond - ignore.
>=20
> $ sudo tcptraceroute -n checkpoint.com
> traceroute to checkpoint.com (216.200.241.66), 30 hops max, 60 byte packet=
s
> 1 81.187.203.81 0.719 ms 1.050 ms 1.298 ms
> 2 90.155.53.54 30.184 ms 31.604 ms 32.370 ms
> 3 90.155.53.43 33.891 ms 35.072 ms 36.021 ms
> 4 85.91.238.217 37.016 ms 38.236 ms 39.215 ms
> 5 85.91.224.10 40.226 ms 41.358 ms 42.354 ms
> 6 212.187.200.145 164.713 ms 164.102 ms 164.020 ms
> 7 4.69.139.99 45.316 ms 194.042 ms 194.088 ms
> 8 64.125.14.17 194.297 ms 193.943 ms 193.558 ms
> 9 64.125.31.198 194.304 ms 194.462 ms 193.560 ms
> 10 * * *
> 11 64.125.26.37 288.267 ms 284.237 ms 166.340 ms
> 12 64.125.24.38 178.571 ms 179.467 ms 156.769 ms
> 13 64.125.28.238 148.002 ms 147.244 ms 147.501 ms
> 14 64.125.26.141 206.010 ms 205.574 ms 205.426 ms
> 15 64.125.28.57 201.753 ms 172.439 ms 174.169 ms
> 16 64.124.201.230 176.866 ms 172.412 ms 172.510 ms
> 17 208.185.174.208 173.668 ms 174.310 ms 173.999 ms
> 18 216.200.241.66 <syn,ack> 172.504 ms 172.386 ms 172.700 ms
>=20
>=20
> Tom
>=20
