dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
1594
share rss forum feed

Lindsey

join:2008-12-16
Gypsy, WV

[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
kudos:3
Reviews:
·Suddenlink

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.
--
I tried to remain child-like, all I achieved was childish.


gatorkram
Need for Speed
Premium
join:2002-07-22
Winterville, NC
kudos:3
Reviews:
·Suddenlink
reply 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.
--
What the heck is a GatorKram? »www.gatorkram.com


moldypickle

join:2009-01-04
Haughton, LA
kudos:3
reply 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
kudos:28
reply 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
ahh..kk..was just wondering..thanks


moldypickle

join:2009-01-04
Haughton, LA
kudos:3
Reviews:
·Suddenlink
reply 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
--
30/2 Suddenlink : Current
5/1 CMA : Old
15/2 TWC : Old

Moostang

join:2009-03-24
Tyler, TX
reply 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
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
kudos:28
reply 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

join:2009-01-04
Haughton, LA
kudos:3
Reviews:
·Suddenlink
reply 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