| Is Dr. Ping down again? hmmm? |
|
 LanikLab-nikPremium,ExMod 2002-03
join:2001-06-25
Bay Area | Its sorta working too many site are unpingable so its not accurate thus it won't be recorded. |
|
|
|
bmn? ? ?Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus | reply to scorpio54
Updated list... It should be working again. |
|
 dkoert
join:2001-11-20
Wichita, KS | said by bmn:Updated list... It should be working again. Here's what I'm getting:
Sorry, 175 pings gave errors or timeouts. 66 from 109 IPs were reachable. - no record will be made. Seems like it's down again. |
|
bmn? ? ?Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus
1 edit | Working on it now. Thanks.
EDIT: It appears there may be some ICMP filtering in place someplace because I just checked with a verification tool on the site and all but two were up. I've removed them from the list, but Dr. Ping failed for me as well and I'm on a different network.
I'll try to figure it out. Please be patient as it might take some time. |
|
bmn? ? ?Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus | reply to dkoert
I just tested on a Bellsouth connection and I was not given that error. What provider are you using and do you know if they are ICMP filter ?
--
Ann Coulter doesn't know jack about science...
"Extremes to the right and left of any political dispute are always wrong." —Dwight Eisenhower |
|
dkoert
join:2001-11-20
Wichita, KS | said by bmn:What provider are you using and do you know if they are ICMP filter ? My profile is set to show my provider (Cox HSI) in every post.
I'm not sure what you mean about them using ICMP filtering. Cox, like many ISPs, sets some of their routers to filter echo requests. If it helps, here's a tracert to one of the IPs appearing in a Dr. Ping report:
Microsoft Windows XP [Version 5.1.2600]
(C) Copyright 1985-2001 Microsoft Corp.
C:\>tracert 207.245.34.122
Tracing route to router.invlogic.com [207.245.34.122]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 1 ms 1 ms 1 ms 192.168.0.1
2 11 ms 11 ms * ip68-103-200-1.ks.ok.cox.net [68.103.200.1]
3 11 ms 10 ms * ip70-183-64-53.ks.ks.cox.net [70.183.64.53]
4 9 ms 21 ms * wichdsrj02gex070002.rd.ks.cox.net [70.183.71.13]
5 52 ms 43 ms 14 ms wichbbrc02-pos0101.rd.ks.cox.net [68.1.1.182]
6 20 ms 34 ms 20 ms mtc1bbrc01-pos0200.rd.om.cox.net [68.1.1.177]
7 22 ms 20 ms * mtc1bbrc02-pos0100.rd.om.cox.net [68.1.0.123]
8 34 ms 34 ms 36 ms langbbrj01.r2.la.cox.net [68.1.0.225]
9 36 ms 36 ms 36 ms ge6-0.gwy1-chi.allstream.net [206.223.119.3]
10 54 ms 53 ms 61 ms pos5-0-0.hcap1-ott.bb.allstream.net.172.212.199.in-addr.arpa [199.212.172.2]
11 57 ms 58 ms * 216.191.132.150
12 60 ms 65 ms 56 ms router.invlogic.com [207.245.34.122]
Trace complete. |
|
bmn? ? ?Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus | said by dkoert:My profile is set to show my provider (Cox HSI) in every post. See above for your first post to this thread... Your ISP wasn't visible, probably because of some of my site preferences...
I'm not sure what you mean about them using ICMP filtering. Cox, like many ISPs, sets some of their routers to filter echo requests. Somewhere along the way, ICMP packets are being dropped, either at the destination or along the path between you and the destination (which could be in Cox's network). The test I ran last night that failed was run from a Cox connection as well, just in a different area. With a Bellsouth connection, however, it worked fine.
And I do remember Cox had done some ICMP echo request filter and traceroute packet filter for awhile there...
If it helps, here's a tracert to one of the IPs appearing in a Dr. Ping report Unfortunately, if you can see the address in the report, I'm fairly certain it was one of the addresses that wasn't causing a problem.
--
Ann Coulter doesn't know jack about science...
"Extremes to the right and left of any political dispute are always wrong." —Dwight Eisenhower |
|
dkoert
join:2001-11-20
Wichita, KS | reply to bmn
After running, Dr. Ping takes me to the output at this webpage.
I don't know if you can display this page. The page shows the following:
Sorry, 151 pings gave errors or timeouts. 75 from 107 IPs were reachable. - no record will be made.
Detail of your results
8.6ms hsipaccess1.dallas1.level3.net
10ms 152.63.99.34
11.3ms 208.54.220.15
12.3ms 204.9.121.34
12.6ms hsipaccess1.denver1.level3.net
15ms 68.1.208.30
16ms 152.63.66.65
16.3ms 152.63.89.173
17ms 209.247.3.3
19.3ms 68.4.16.30
19.6ms 209.244.44.67
21ms 24.29.100.41
21.3ms 66.7.153.202
21.3ms hsipaccess1.boston1.level3.net
21.6ms 24.29.100.13
21.6ms hsipaccess1.chicago1.level3.net
22ms 152.63.19.74
22ms 64.200.140.158
22.3ms 66.112.46.130
22.6ms 144.232.20.94
25.3ms 152.63.101.250
26ms 152.63.112.197
27ms 206.222.122.146
28.3ms 152.63.115.29
29.6ms 151.164.70.132
30.6ms 204.9.126.14
31ms 64.200.210.190
32.3ms 64.5.1.13
35.3ms 68.47.160.5
37ms 152.63.102.94
37.3ms 68.11.16.30
39ms 209.193.35.246
43.6ms 152.63.34.133
44.3ms 152.63.10.105
45ms 66.231.25.26
50.3ms 69.25.0.14
52ms core1.iad.above.net
52.3ms 196.ATM7-0.XR2.SF04.ALTER.NET
53.3ms 68.1.18.30
55ms 209.247.3.131
55ms 209.244.2.98
55.6ms 66.28.4.142
56ms 208.231.96.2
56ms 209.247.3.195
56.3ms 209.244.44.99
56.3ms hsipaccess1.atlanta1.level3.net
57.3ms 64.91.3.33
60ms 64.71.168.185
60ms hevacis-04-pos51.conxion.net
61.3ms acr1-loopback.Chicagochd.cw.net
61.6ms 24.56.97.34
62ms 205.152.0.20
65ms 192.5.4.233
65.6ms 206.222.119.37
66.6ms 209.247.2.131
68ms sl-bb20-kc-11-2.sprintlink.net
70.6ms sl-bb11-nyc-4-0.sprintlink.net
71ms 64.159.3.213
71.6ms 207.245.34.122
71.6ms 208.252.22.2
73ms sl-w1-mae.sprintlink.net
75ms 64.91.89.1
75.6ms 216.109.118.69
76.3ms 209.244.44.51
80ms 206.123.6.10
81.3ms 204.251.1.9
85ms 64.31.159.242
85.6ms 206.222.122.234
85.6ms 125.at-5-0-0.TR1.ATL5.ALTER.NET
89.6ms 152.63.107.150
93ms 205.152.144.235
108ms 64.62.227.53
153ms 66.28.4.93
221ms 136.145.215.2
251.3ms 204.194.39.229
|
|
dkoert
join:2001-11-20
Wichita, KS | reply to bmn
said by bmn:And I do remember Cox had done some ICMP echo request filter and traceroute packet filter for awhile there... ???
Do you mean to say that in addition to Cox dropping ICMP echo requests directed to their own routers they are also filtering traffic to prevent echo requests being made to upstream IP addresses that they don't own? I've never heard of that, or seen any evidence of that. |
|
bmn? ? ?Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus | said by dkoert:Do you mean to say that in addition to Cox dropping ICMP echo requests directed to their own routers they are also filtering traffic to prevent echo requests being made to upstream IP addresses that they don't own? I've never heard of that, or seen any evidence of that. Back with one of the worms, yes, they were doing that.
--
Ann Coulter doesn't know jack about science...
"Extremes to the right and left of any political dispute are always wrong." —Dwight Eisenhower |
|
bmn? ? ?Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus | reply to dkoert
Yes, hosts that are failing are not showing up in your list...
I just ran the test and I had 107 hosts/routers listed in y results versus just 70-something in your list.
However, I might be able to compared lists and see what's happening later.
Right now I'm cleaning up a virus...
--
Ann Coulter doesn't know jack about science...
"Extremes to the right and left of any political dispute are always wrong." —Dwight Eisenhower |
|
