Date: Tue, 22 Apr 1997 00:32:42 +0300 (EET DST) From: mika ruohotie <bsdcur@shadows.aeon.net> To: current@freebsd.org Subject: dup and other anomalities... Message-ID: <199704212132.AAA08722@shadows.aeon.net>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
well, is there something wrong, or am i missing something? my friend has weird problem in his net, check these pings (this is /27), the problem introduced himself after he upgraded from 2.1.5 to 2.2.-stable with make world. before in 2.1.5 no probs. (this is actually real c-class address, but he idnt want it to be visible) 10.0.2.17 -> 10.0.2.18 PING 10.0.2.18 (10.0.2.18): 56 data bytes 64 bytes from 10.0.2.18: icmp_seq=0 ttl=255 time=90.152 ms 64 bytes from 10.0.2.18: icmp_seq=1 ttl=255 time=79.985 ms 64 bytes from 10.0.2.18: icmp_seq=2 ttl=255 time=69.991 ms 64 bytes from 10.0.2.18: icmp_seq=3 ttl=255 time=59.990 ms 64 bytes from 10.0.2.18: icmp_seq=4 ttl=255 time=49.972 ms 64 bytes from 10.0.2.18: icmp_seq=5 ttl=255 time=39.990 ms 64 bytes from 10.0.2.18: icmp_seq=6 ttl=255 time=29.990 ms 64 bytes from 10.0.2.18: icmp_seq=7 ttl=255 time=19.992 ms 64 bytes from 10.0.2.18: icmp_seq=8 ttl=255 time=9.987 ms the cycle goes on and on, doesnt always start from 90. then: 10.0.2.17 -> netmask 10.0.2.31 PING 10.0.2.31 (10.0.2.31): 56 data bytes 64 bytes from 10.0.2.17: icmp_seq=0 ttl=255 time=0.371 ms 64 bytes from 10.0.2.18: icmp_seq=0 ttl=255 time=90.442 ms (DUP!) 64 bytes from 10.0.2.17: icmp_seq=1 ttl=255 time=0.299 ms 64 bytes from 10.0.2.18: icmp_seq=1 ttl=255 time=90.032 ms (DUP!) 64 bytes from 10.0.2.17: icmp_seq=2 ttl=255 time=0.287 ms 64 bytes from 10.0.2.18: icmp_seq=2 ttl=255 time=80.044 ms (DUP!) 64 bytes from 10.0.2.17: icmp_seq=3 ttl=255 time=0.289 ms 64 bytes from 10.0.2.18: icmp_seq=3 ttl=255 time=70.061 ms (DUP!) 64 bytes from 10.0.2.17: icmp_seq=4 ttl=255 time=0.285 ms 64 bytes from 10.0.2.18: icmp_seq=4 ttl=255 time=60.044 ms (DUP!) no routing daemon, static routes. with routed that worked in 2.1.5 nicely, there's this: Apr 20 12:55:26 soapbar /kernel: ipfw: 2299 Allow UDP 10.0.2.17:520 10.0.2.31:520 via de0 what the broadcast does there? then, i did this same in my isp's 2.2 machine: (pinged the broadcast) (i hide the real ip coz they probably dont want it out, it's c-class too) PING 10.0.0.127 (10.0.0.127): 56 data bytes 64 bytes from 10.0.0.15: icmp_seq=0 ttl=255 time=0.547 ms 64 bytes from 10.0.0.1: icmp_seq=0 ttl=255 time=20.393 ms (DUP!) 64 bytes from 10.0.0.11: icmp_seq=0 ttl=255 time=21.575 ms (DUP!) 64 bytes from 10.0.0.111: icmp_seq=0 ttl=255 time=21.775 ms (DUP!) 64 bytes from 10.0.0.3: icmp_seq=0 ttl=255 time=28.973 ms (DUP!) 64 bytes from 10.0.0.4: icmp_seq=0 ttl=255 time=49.307 ms (DUP!) 64 bytes from 10.0.0.126: icmp_seq=0 ttl=255 time=156.040 ms (DUP!) 64 bytes from 10.0.0.5: icmp_seq=0 ttl=255 time=422.538 ms (DUP!) others than 126 are frebsd 2.2 machines (as far as i know) and 126 is cisco. as far as i can tell again, my isp has static routes too. now, i cant generate that in either 2.1.-stable net at work, nor in my 3.0-current net at home... so i assume there's something broken, i can not really say what, in the 2.2, right? if not, what's wrong? another question, why is it possible to ping the broadcast anyway? also, now that i think about it, a little after my isp went to 2.2 i started to notice some lag, but it depends... (this is a prob my pal has in his net too, and i might have similar prob too) like, freebsd-freebsd connection goes fine, but freebsd-cisco doesnt, then again freebsd-freebsd-cisco goes fine... (we are talking about 2.2 here) and from my net to my isp's 2.2 machine running ircd, without a reason there is a severe lag specially from the win95 box. as far as i can tell my freebsd 3.0 works fine with it. also as far as i can tell, i cant trace from where the lag comes, it just _is_ there... (traceroute/ping look clean) my hunch would be something bad in the tcp section, but is it so? is _anyone_ else having anything even closely related to this? specially eyes on 2.2-branch. (i personally dont run it yet on anything, not until i get my release cd, after which i upgrade 2.1 to it and cvsup that to 2.2-latest) (and if i sound like i'm not making sense, it's after midnite, pardon me) mickey
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199704212132.AAA08722>