From owner-freebsd-questions Sat Sep 7 02:17:24 1996 Return-Path: owner-questions Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id CAA19342 for questions-outgoing; Sat, 7 Sep 1996 02:17:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from phil.digitaladvantage.net (phil.digitaladvantage.net [207.40.157.13]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id CAA19336 for ; Sat, 7 Sep 1996 02:17:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from phil.digitaladvantage.net (phil.digitaladvantage.net [207.40.157.13]) by phil.digitaladvantage.net (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id DAA13728; Sat, 7 Sep 1996 03:04:08 -0500 (CDT) Date: Sat, 7 Sep 1996 03:04:08 -0500 (CDT) From: Russ Panula To: dwhite@resnet.uoregon.edu cc: Kurt Schafer , freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Another approach to sendmail In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-questions@FreeBSD.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On Fri, 6 Sep 1996, Doug White wrote: > On Fri, 6 Sep 1996, Kurt Schafer wrote: > > > In conclusion, can anybody run off any kind of list that could cause > > sendmail to time out all the time ? Even transfers to ISP's in the same > > city die all the time. > > Sounds more like either bad cabling or bad outbound routing. It works one > way and not the other. > That's what bing is saying too: % bing phil.digitaladvantage.net wave.cyberbeach.net BING phil.digitaladvantage.net (207.40.157.13) and wave.cyberbeach.net (205.150.79.11) 44 and 108 data bytes bing: packet (56 bytes) from unexpected host 192.197.158.242 bing: packet (56 bytes) from unexpected host 192.197.158.242 bing: packet (56 bytes) from unexpected host 192.197.158.242 bing: packet (56 bytes) from unexpected host 192.197.158.242 bing: packet (56 bytes) from unexpected host 192.197.158.242 bing: packet (56 bytes) from unexpected host 192.197.158.242 bing: packet (56 bytes) from unexpected host 192.197.158.242 bing: packet (56 bytes) from unexpected host 192.197.158.242 ^C --- phil.digitaladvantage.net statistics --- bytes out in dup loss rtt (ms): min avg max 44 4 4 0% 0.161 0.191 0.244 108 4 4 0% 0.153 0.154 0.158 --- wave.cyberbeach.net statistics --- bytes out in dup loss rtt (ms): min avg max 44 4 0 100% 108 4 0 100% not enough received packets to estimate link characteristics. % Looks like packets being sent to wave.cyberbeach.net are coming back disguised as packets from 192.197.158.242. Interesting.. :) And if that isn't strange enough, how about a bing to 192.197.158.242: % bing phil.digitaladvantage.net 192.197.158.242 BING phil.digitaladvantage.net (207.40.157.13) and 192.197.158.242 (192.197.158.242) 44 and 108 data bytes bing: unexpected packet size (56 bytes) from 192.197.158.242 bing: unexpected packet size (56 bytes) from 192.197.158.242 bing: unexpected packet size (56 bytes) from 192.197.158.242 bing: unexpected packet size (56 bytes) from 192.197.158.242 ^C --- phil.digitaladvantage.net statistics --- bytes out in dup loss rtt (ms): min avg max 44 2 2 0% 0.166 0.208 0.251 108 2 2 0% 0.155 0.160 0.164 --- 192.197.158.242 statistics --- bytes out in dup loss rtt (ms): min avg max 44 2 0 100% 108 2 0 100% not enough received packets to estimate link characteristics. % And the error message gets even more interesting.. "unexpected packet size" Since 192.197.158.242 is most likely a router port this problem can probably be localized to the router. (It's a good guess at least) Check router configs, and test the router hardware as well as the wiring. Russ (sorry for the long bing outputs and ugly pine formatting.. it's late)