dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
Search similar:


uniqs
2339
Lindsey
join:2008-12-16
Gypsy, WV

Lindsey

Member

[Speed] Is this odd.. 2nd hop of trace showing 100% packet loss

yes, thats right my 2nd jop is showing 100% packet loss, but yet my net seems to be ok...any idea why?

I got pingplotter cause my other one I use was showing this and I thought it was bad, but plotter shows same thing.

Target Name: www.google.com
IP: 74.125.130.147
Date/Time: 12/11/2012 4:38:34 PM to 12/11/2012 4:38:49 PM

1 0 ms 0 ms 0 ms 0 ms 0 ms 0 ms 0 ms router.Belkin [192.168.2.1]
2 * * * * * * * [-]
3 9 ms 8 ms 7 ms 10 ms 14 ms 9 ms 7 ms 66-76-208-249.sta.suddenlink.net [66.76.208.249]
4 11 ms 11 ms 9 ms 11 ms 9 ms 9 ms 17 ms 66-76-208-237.sta.suddenlink.net [66.76.208.237]
5 11 ms 12 ms 14 ms 11 ms 19 ms 12 ms 10 ms 66-76-225-221.tyrd.suddenlink.net [66.76.225.221]
6 16 ms 11 ms 13 ms 12 ms 13 ms 14 ms 13 ms 66-76-225-85.tyrd.suddenlink.net [66.76.225.85]
7 27 ms 27 ms 28 ms 30 ms 30 ms 28 ms 28 ms 173-219-252-105-link.sta.suddenlink.net [173.219.252.105]
8 28 ms 26 ms 32 ms 28 ms 29 ms 27 ms 27 ms 173-219-252-96-link.sta.suddenlink.net [173.219.252.96]
9 25 ms 26 ms 26 ms 27 ms 34 ms 26 ms 26 ms ashbosr02-10gex1-3.atw.sta.suddenlink.net [66.76.219.37]
10 26 ms 26 ms 30 ms 89 ms 27 ms 26 ms 26 ms 66-76-229-162.tyrd.suddenlink.net [66.76.229.162]
11 25 ms 28 ms 27 ms 33 ms 29 ms 26 ms 27 ms [209.85.252.46]
12 N/A 27 ms N/A 28 ms N/A N/A 27 ms [72.14.236.148]
13 N/A 34 ms N/A N/A N/A 38 ms 38 ms [72.14.235.12]
14 N/A N/A N/A 51 ms N/A N/A 42 ms [216.239.48.40]
15 45 ms 42 ms 42 ms N/A 42 ms N/A 43 ms [209.85.254.249]
16 * * * * * * * [-]
17 47 ms 41 ms 42 ms 41 ms 40 ms 50 ms 41 ms gh-in-f147.1e100.net [74.125.130.147]

Ping statistics for www.google.com
Packets: Sent = 7, Received = 7, Lost = 0 (0.0%)
Round Trip Times: Minimum = 40ms, Maximum = 50ms, Average = 43ms

|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------|

| WinMTR statistics |

| Host - % | Sent | Recv | Best | Avrg | Wrst | Last |

|------------------------------------------------|------|------|------|------|------|------|

| router.Belkin - 0 | 10 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |

| No response from host - 100 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |

| 66-76-208-253.sta.suddenlink.net - 0 | 10 | 10 | 7 | 9 | 13 | 11 |

| 66-76-208-241.sta.suddenlink.net - 0 | 10 | 10 | 7 | 10 | 15 | 11 |

| 66-76-225-221.tyrd.suddenlink.net - 0 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 12 | 15 | 10 |

| 66-76-225-85.tyrd.suddenlink.net - 0 | 10 | 10 | 14 | 17 | 26 | 17 |

| 173-219-252-103-link.sta.suddenlink.net - 0 | 10 | 10 | 14 | 17 | 26 | 18 |

| 173-219-252-219-link.sta.suddenlink.net - 0 | 10 | 10 | 16 | 17 | 19 | 17 |

| 173-219-252-225-link.sta.suddenlink.net - 0 | 10 | 10 | 14 | 17 | 21 | 17 |

| 173-219-252-242-link.sta.suddenlink.net - 0 | 10 | 10 | 16 | 17 | 19 | 17 |

| 173-219-252-208-link.sta.suddenlink.net - 0 | 10 | 10 | 14 | 16 | 19 | 17 |

| 173-219-252-94-link.sta.suddenlink.net - 0 | 10 | 10 | 33 | 36 | 39 | 36 |

|chicosrc01-10gex1-1.tex.sta.suddenlink.net - 0 | 10 | 10 | 30 | 33 | 38 | 38 |

| 72.14.197.82 - 0 | 10 | 10 | 31 | 47 | 97 | 32 |

| 209.85.254.130 - 0 | 10 | 10 | 30 | 32 | 34 | 32 |

| 72.14.237.130 - 0 | 10 | 10 | 30 | 33 | 42 | 30 |

| 72.14.239.15 - 0 | 10 | 10 | 46 | 47 | 50 | 47 |

| 216.239.47.120 - 0 | 10 | 10 | 53 | 54 | 56 | 55 |

| 72.14.237.216 - 0 | 10 | 10 | 53 | 63 | 114 | 54 |

| 216.239.43.187 - 0 | 10 | 10 | 53 | 55 | 57 | 54 |

| dfw06s17-in-f1.1e100.net - 0 | 10 | 10 | 53 | 54 | 56 | 55 |

|________________________________________________|______|______|______|______|______|______|

WinMTR v0.92 GPL V2 by Appnor MSP - Fully Managed Hosting & Cloud Provider
jimbopalmer
Tsar of all the Rushers
join:2008-06-02
Greenwood, MS

jimbopalmer

Member

Re: [Speed] Is this odd.. 2nd hop of trace showing 100% packet l

Many devices regard getting your packets to their destination as more important than ICMP pings and traceroutes. Some ignore ICMP entirely.

If you think about it, you want the real traffic to have higher priority.

gatorkram
Need for Speed
Premium Member
join:2002-07-22
Winterville, NC

gatorkram to Lindsey

Premium Member

to Lindsey
I've noticed this before, and posted about it here in the forum someplace. It's no big deal, and shouldn't cause any issues, it seems to come and go.

moldypickle
Premium Member
join:2009-01-04
Haughton, LA

moldypickle to jimbopalmer

Premium Member

to jimbopalmer
Yup, they can be configured to ignore ping requests based on load or all the time.

Nothing wrong unless you can't reach the end target.

SDL L3Tech
join:2011-06-07
Tyler, TX

SDL L3Tech to Lindsey

Member

to Lindsey
We're not blocking ICMP to that hop. You can test this by pinging your gateway IP. The gateway IP is on the same virtual interface of the CMTS so if you can ping your gateway but not the private IP then that proves that we're not blocking pings.

When tracing, the primary IP of that virtual interface is what responds. This primary IP is a private IP within RFC1918. Many devices do not allow private subnets on a WAN interface or may see the chatter from that private IP and block it.

So long as the hops past hop 2 do not show packet-loss then hop 2 not responding is not a problem. However, if you wish to test packet-loss to hop 2 then simply run pings to your gateway IP.
Lindsey
join:2008-12-16
Gypsy, WV

Lindsey

Member

ahh..kk..was just wondering..thanks

moldypickle
Premium Member
join:2009-01-04
Haughton, LA
ARRIS SB8200
Ubiquiti UDM-Pro
Ubiquiti UniFi UAP-nanoHD

moldypickle to SDL L3Tech

Premium Member

to SDL L3Tech
said by SDL L3Tech:

We're not blocking ICMP to that hop. You can test this by pinging your gateway IP. The gateway IP is on the same virtual interface of the CMTS so if you can ping your gateway but not the private IP then that proves that we're not blocking pings.

When tracing, the primary IP of that virtual interface is what responds. This primary IP is a private IP within RFC1918. Many devices do not allow private subnets on a WAN interface or may see the chatter from that private IP and block it.

I'm not exactly sure if it's being tired, but this just confused the hell out of me for the longest, LMAO
Moostang
join:2009-03-24
Tyler, TX

Moostang to Lindsey

Member

to Lindsey
Really any demarc between two networks should block all RFC1918 since it can be used in each network regardless of overlapping subnets. If that was the case here and they are in fact using 10.x subnets as the primary IP address, then the CMTS hop should never respond if they were properly blocking RFC1918.

I'm not sure if there is a way to get secondary addresses to show up in traces though.
Lindsey
join:2008-12-16
Gypsy, WV

Lindsey

Member

the odd thing is is that this just started to happen..before 2nd hop was always there

SDL L3Tech
join:2011-06-07
Tyler, TX

SDL L3Tech to Lindsey

Member

to Lindsey
I tested this at home last night and I too am unable to get a response from the CMTS when tracing from my home network. However, I can ping every IP on the CMTS.

I do not see anything that is blocking this nor has there been any configuration changes to explain it. Still digging.

moldypickle
Premium Member
join:2009-01-04
Haughton, LA
ARRIS SB8200
Ubiquiti UDM-Pro
Ubiquiti UniFi UAP-nanoHD

moldypickle to Lindsey

Premium Member

to Lindsey
said by Lindsey:

the odd thing is is that this just started to happen..before 2nd hop was always there

Just did one myself also and same thing, second hop isn't there now. Before it was 10.0.x.x /shrug