[j-nsp] Strange Packet Loss Problem
Min
qiu.min98 at gmail.com
Mon Oct 23 13:24:19 EDT 2006
It does not look like a crc error as the counter stayed the same
between post:
338 messages with bad checksum.
On the other hand, the throttled icmps counter is kind of high...
Min
On 10/23/06, Christian Koch <ckoch at globix.com> wrote:
> Here are some rapids with error statistics
>
> ckoch at core2.lhr3> ping rapid 212.71.229.25
> PING 212.71.229.25 (212.71.229.25): 56 data bytes
> !!!!!
> --- 212.71.229.25 ping statistics ---
> 5 packets transmitted, 5 packets received, 0% packet loss
> round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 0.840/0.895/1.098/0.102 ms
>
> ckoch at core2.lhr3> ping rapid 212.71.229.25
> PING 212.71.229.25 (212.71.229.25): 56 data bytes
> !!!!!
> --- 212.71.229.25 ping statistics ---
> 5 packets transmitted, 5 packets received, 0% packet loss
> round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 0.835/0.892/1.101/0.104 ms
>
> ckoch at core2.lhr3> ping rapid 212.71.229.25 count 100 size 100
> PING 212.71.229.25 (212.71.229.25): 100 data bytes
> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> --- 212.71.229.25 ping statistics ---
> 100 packets transmitted, 100 packets received, 0% packet loss
> round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 0.856/0.870/1.072/0.022 ms
>
> ckoch at core2.lhr3> ping rapid 212.71.229.25 count 100 size 200
> PING 212.71.229.25 (212.71.229.25): 200 data bytes
> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> --- 212.71.229.25 ping statistics ---
> 100 packets transmitted, 100 packets received, 0% packet loss
> round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 0.907/1.509/34.638/3.605 ms
>
> ckoch at core2.lhr3> ping rapid 212.71.229.25 count 100 size 293
> PING 212.71.229.25 (212.71.229.25): 293 data bytes
> !.!!!!!..!.!....!.!!!!!..!.!!.!!......!!!..!..!!!.!.!....!..!!!!!!!!....!.!..!!..!!!!!.!.!!!..!!!.!!
> --- 212.71.229.25 ping statistics ---
> 100 packets transmitted, 55 packets received, 45% packet loss
> round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 1.016/1.251/9.847/1.172 ms
>
> ckoch at core2.lhr3> ping rapid 212.71.229.25 count 100 size 292
> PING 212.71.229.25 (212.71.229.25): 292 data bytes
> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> --- 212.71.229.25 ping statistics ---
> 100 packets transmitted, 100 packets received, 0% packet loss
> round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 0.990/1.008/1.273/0.032 ms
>
> ckoch at core2.lhr3> ping rapid 212.71.229.25 count 100 size 294
> PING 212.71.229.25 (212.71.229.25): 294 data bytes
> !!...!!!.!!..!!.....!.!.!!!!!!!!!!!!.!.!..!!.!.!..!!!!!!!!.!.!!!.!...!!!!!!.....!..!!!.!.!.!..!.!.!!
> --- 212.71.229.25 ping statistics ---
> 100 packets transmitted, 59 packets received, 41% packet loss
> round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 1.013/1.525/22.546/2.798 ms
>
> ckoch at core2.lhr3> ping rapid 212.71.229.25 count 100 size 300
> PING 212.71.229.25 (212.71.229.25): 300 data bytes
> !!.!!!!!!!!..!.!!!.!!!.!!.!!.!.!!.!.!!.!..!.!!!!.!!.!...!!.!.!!.!.!.!!.!!!!!...!!..!..!!.....!!!!!..
> --- 212.71.229.25 ping statistics ---
> 100 packets transmitted, 60 packets received, 40% packet loss
> round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 1.018/1.303/9.984/1.269 ms
>
> ckoch at core2.lhr3> ping rapid 212.71.229.25 count 100 size 400
> PING 212.71.229.25 (212.71.229.25): 400 data bytes
> .!!.!!..!.!!.!!!!!!!!!!!.!!!!!!!..!!.!!..!!..!.!!.!!!.!..!..!!!.!!.!!!.!!!!.!.!..!!!!!.!!!.!!!!!!.!.
> --- 212.71.229.25 ping statistics ---
> 100 packets transmitted, 68 packets received, 32% packet loss
> round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 1.068/1.484/21.258/2.440 ms
>
> ckoch at core2.lhr3> ping rapid 212.71.229.25 count 100 size 700
> PING 212.71.229.25 (212.71.229.25): 700 data bytes
> !..!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.!!!!!
> --- 212.71.229.25 ping statistics ---
> 100 packets transmitted, 96 packets received, 4% packet loss
> round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 1.260/1.333/5.439/0.432 ms
>
> ckoch at core2.lhr3> ping rapid 212.71.229.25 count 100 size 800
> PING 212.71.229.25 (212.71.229.25): 800 data bytes
> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.!!!!.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> --- 212.71.229.25 ping statistics ---
> 100 packets transmitted, 97 packets received, 3% packet loss
> round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 1.321/1.345/1.636/0.046 ms
>
> ckoch at core2.lhr3> ping rapid 212.71.229.25 count 100 size 1000
> PING 212.71.229.25 (212.71.229.25): 1000 data bytes
> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> --- 212.71.229.25 ping statistics ---
> 100 packets transmitted, 100 packets received, 0% packet loss
> round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 1.449/1.498/3.275/0.208 ms
>
> ckoch at core2.lhr3> show system statistics icmp
> icmp:
> 0 drops due to rate limit
> 3747729 calls to icmp_error
> 0 errors not generated because old message was icmp
> Output histogram:
> echo reply: 9220490
> destination unreachable: 3745301
> time exceeded: 1577
> time stamp reply: 472
> 2 messages with bad code fields
> 0 messages less than the minimum length
> 338 messages with bad checksum
> 2 messages with bad source address
> 28 messages with bad length
> 15 echo drops with broadcast or multicast destinaton address
> 0 timestamp drops with broadcast or multicast destination address
> Input histogram:
> echo reply: 51106
> destination unreachable: 5631
> source quench: 6
> routing redirect: 829
> #7: 2
> echo: 9220505
> time exceeded: 1883
> parameter problem: 1
> time stamp: 472
> time stamp reply: 1
> information request reply: 20
> address mask reply: 2
> 9220962 message responses generated
>
> cckoch at core2.lhr3> show pfe statistics ip icmp
> ICMP Statistics:
> 135715 requests
> 507 network unreachables
> 96036 ttl expired
> 0 ttl captured
> 0 redirects
> 0 mtu exceeded
> 0 icmp/option handoffs
>
> ICMP Errors:
> 0 unknown unreachables
> 0 unsupported ICMP type
> 0 unprocessed redirects
> 0 invalid ICMP type
> 0 invalid protocol
> 0 bad input interface
> 38913 throttled icmps
> 0 runts
>
> ICMP Discards:
> 0 multicasts
> 0 bad source addresses
> 0 bad dest addresses
> 32 IP fragments
> 85 ICMP errors
>
> ckoch at core2.lhr3>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Josef Buchsteiner [mailto:josefb at juniper.net]
> Sent: Monday, October 23, 2006 8:45 AM
> To: Christian Koch
> Cc: juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
> Subject: Re: [j-nsp] Strange Packet Loss Problem
>
> I see... lets then go back to the rapid pings and see where
> the icmp bad checksum counter is increasing and do then local
> loop actions...
>
> thanks
> Josef
>
> Monday, October 23, 2006, 2:38:21 PM, you wrote:
> CK>
> CK>
> CK> Hey Josef,
> CK>
> CK> Real quick, here is a regular ping which looks fine, and a
> CK> snapshot of system icmp stats
> CK>
> CK> ckoch at core2.lhr3> ping 212.71.229.25 PING 212.71.229.25
> CK> (212.71.229.25): 56 data bytes
> CK> 64 bytes from 212.71.229.25: icmp_seq=0 ttl=251 time=1.113 ms
> CK> 64 bytes from 212.71.229.25: icmp_seq=1 ttl=251 time=1.063 ms
> CK> 64 bytes from 212.71.229.25: icmp_seq=2 ttl=251 time=0.957 ms
> CK> 64 bytes from 212.71.229.25: icmp_seq=3 ttl=251 time=0.995 ms
> CK> 64 bytes from 212.71.229.25: icmp_seq=4 ttl=251 time=0.947 ms
> CK> 64 bytes from 212.71.229.25: icmp_seq=5 ttl=251 time=1.429 ms
> CK> 64 bytes from 212.71.229.25: icmp_seq=6 ttl=251 time=0.934 ms
> CK> 64 bytes from 212.71.229.25: icmp_seq=7 ttl=251 time=1.017 ms
> CK> 64 bytes from 212.71.229.25: icmp_seq=8 ttl=251 time=0.935 ms
> CK> 64 bytes from 212.71.229.25: icmp_seq=9 ttl=251 time=0.973 ms
> CK> 64 bytes from 212.71.229.25: icmp_seq=10 ttl=251 time=1.138 ms
> CK> 64 bytes from 212.71.229.25: icmp_seq=11 ttl=251 time=1.003 ms
> CK> 64 bytes from 212.71.229.25: icmp_seq=12 ttl=251 time=0.946 ms
> CK> 64 bytes from 212.71.229.25: icmp_seq=13 ttl=251 time=1.172 ms
> CK> 64 bytes from 212.71.229.25: icmp_seq=14 ttl=251 time=1.002 ms
> CK> 64 bytes from 212.71.229.25: icmp_seq=15 ttl=251 time=1.009 ms
> CK> 64 bytes from 212.71.229.25: icmp_seq=16 ttl=251 time=0.921 ms
> CK> 64 bytes from 212.71.229.25: icmp_seq=17 ttl=251 time=1.009 ms
> CK> 64 bytes from 212.71.229.25: icmp_seq=18 ttl=251 time=0.959 ms
> CK> 64 bytes from 212.71.229.25: icmp_seq=19 ttl=251 time=0.973 ms
> CK> 64 bytes from 212.71.229.25: icmp_seq=20 ttl=251 time=2.362 ms
> CK> 64 bytes from 212.71.229.25: icmp_seq=21 ttl=251 time=1.034 ms
> CK> 64 bytes from 212.71.229.25: icmp_seq=22 ttl=251 time=1.007 ms
> CK> 64 bytes from 212.71.229.25: icmp_seq=23 ttl=251 time=0.913 ms
> CK> 64 bytes from 212.71.229.25: icmp_seq=24 ttl=251 time=0.959 ms
> CK> 64 bytes from 212.71.229.25: icmp_seq=25 ttl=251 time=1.021 ms
> CK> 64 bytes from 212.71.229.25: icmp_seq=26 ttl=251 time=0.996 ms
> CK> 64 bytes from 212.71.229.25: icmp_seq=27 ttl=251 time=0.966 ms
> CK> 64 bytes from 212.71.229.25: icmp_seq=28 ttl=251 time=3.044 ms
> CK> 64 bytes from 212.71.229.25: icmp_seq=29 ttl=251 time=0.940 ms
> CK> 64 bytes from 212.71.229.25: icmp_seq=30 ttl=251 time=0.946 ms
> CK> 64 bytes from 212.71.229.25: icmp_seq=31 ttl=251 time=1.054 ms
> CK> 64 bytes from 212.71.229.25: icmp_seq=32 ttl=251 time=0.989 ms
> CK> 64 bytes from 212.71.229.25: icmp_seq=33 ttl=251 time=0.973 ms
> CK> 64 bytes from 212.71.229.25: icmp_seq=34 ttl=251 time=0.963 ms
> CK> 64 bytes from 212.71.229.25: icmp_seq=35 ttl=251 time=1.028 ms
> CK> 64 bytes from 212.71.229.25: icmp_seq=36 ttl=251 time=0.954 ms
> CK> 64 bytes from 212.71.229.25: icmp_seq=37 ttl=251 time=0.965 ms
> CK> 64 bytes from 212.71.229.25: icmp_seq=38 ttl=251 time=0.999 ms
> CK> 64 bytes from 212.71.229.25: icmp_seq=39 ttl=251 time=1.003 ms
> CK> 64 bytes from 212.71.229.25: icmp_seq=40 ttl=251 time=0.897 ms
> CK> 64 bytes from 212.71.229.25: icmp_seq=41 ttl=251 time=1.126 ms
> CK> 64 bytes from 212.71.229.25: icmp_seq=42 ttl=251 time=0.913 ms
> CK> 64 bytes from 212.71.229.25: icmp_seq=43 ttl=251 time=1.058 ms
> CK> 64 bytes from 212.71.229.25: icmp_seq=44 ttl=251 time=0.942 ms
> CK> 64 bytes from 212.71.229.25: icmp_seq=45 ttl=251 time=1.030 ms
> CK> 64 bytes from 212.71.229.25: icmp_seq=46 ttl=251 time=0.941 ms
> CK> 64 bytes from 212.71.229.25: icmp_seq=47 ttl=251 time=1.047 ms
> CK> 64 bytes from 212.71.229.25: icmp_seq=48 ttl=251 time=0.938 ms
> CK> 64 bytes from 212.71.229.25: icmp_seq=49 ttl=251 time=0.954 ms
> CK> 64 bytes from 212.71.229.25: icmp_seq=50 ttl=251 time=0.964 ms
> CK> 64 bytes from 212.71.229.25: icmp_seq=51 ttl=251 time=0.976 ms
> CK> 64 bytes from 212.71.229.25: icmp_seq=52 ttl=251 time=0.944 ms
> CK> 64 bytes from 212.71.229.25: icmp_seq=53 ttl=251 time=1.006 ms
> CK> 64 bytes from 212.71.229.25: icmp_seq=54 ttl=251 time=0.972 ms
> CK> 64 bytes from 212.71.229.25: icmp_seq=55 ttl=251 time=1.585 ms
> CK> 64 bytes from 212.71.229.25: icmp_seq=56 ttl=251 time=0.990 ms
> CK> 64 bytes from 212.71.229.25: icmp_seq=57 ttl=251 time=11.160 ms
> CK> 64 bytes from 212.71.229.25: icmp_seq=58 ttl=251 time=0.948 ms
> CK> 64 bytes from 212.71.229.25: icmp_seq=59 ttl=251 time=21.018 ms
> CK> 64 bytes from 212.71.229.25: icmp_seq=60 ttl=251 time=0.996 ms
> CK> 64 bytes from 212.71.229.25: icmp_seq=61 ttl=251 time=30.768 ms ^C
> CK> --- 212.71.229.25 ping statistics ---
> CK> 62 packets transmitted, 62 packets received, 0% packet loss
> CK> round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 0.897/2.029/30.768/4.634 ms
> CK>
> CK> ckoch at core2.lhr3> show system statistics icmp
> CK> icmp:
> CK> 0 drops due to rate limit
> CK> 3747728 calls to icmp_error
> CK> 0 errors not generated because old message was icmp
> CK> Output histogram:
> CK> echo reply: 9220380
> CK> destination unreachable: 3745300
> CK> time exceeded: 1577
> CK> time stamp reply: 472
> CK> 2 messages with bad code fields
> CK> 0 messages less than the minimum length
> CK> 338 messages with bad checksum
> CK> 2 messages with bad source address
> CK> 28 messages with bad length
> CK> 15 echo drops with broadcast or multicast destinaton
> CK> address
> CK> 0 timestamp drops with broadcast or multicast destination
> CK> address
> CK> Input histogram:
> CK> echo reply: 50251
> CK> destination unreachable: 5631
> CK> source quench: 6
> CK> routing redirect: 829
> CK> #7: 2
> CK> echo: 9220395
> CK> time exceeded: 1883
> CK> parameter problem: 1
> CK> time stamp: 472
> CK> time stamp reply: 1
> CK> information request reply: 20
> CK> address mask reply: 2
> CK> 9220852 message responses generated
> CK>
> CK> -----Original Message-----
> CK> From: Josef Buchsteiner [mailto:josefb at juniper.net]
> CK> Sent: Saturday, October 21, 2006 9:27 AM
> CK> To: Christian Koch
> CK> Cc: juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
> CK> Subject: Re: [j-nsp] Strange Packet Loss Problem
> CK>
> CK> Christian,
> CK>
> CK> if it is a data corruption on certain bit patterns then
> CK> you should see this problem also without rapid pings.
> CK> In order to find out where this happen I would
> CK> certainly perform a regular ping ( you may need more
> CK> packets ) and watch the icmp statistics to confirm that
> CK> it is data corruption in case you get icmp chksum
> CK> errors. "show system statistics icmp"
> CK>
> CK> To find out if this is local or remote ( you could make
> CK> some statements with the icmp statistics already
> CK> however I prefer solid results)and you need to put this
> CK> sonet link into local loop and encapsulation cisco-hdlc
> CK> with no-keepalive. Then you perform the ping again with
> CK> bypass routing and interface knob to make sure the
> CK> traffic goes out and comes back in and you watch the
> CK> packet result and icmp statistics. This way you will
> CK> find out if this is local M40 or remote M40.
> CK>
> CK> Once you know this it becomes kinda bit tricky. It
> CK> could be the FPC in question that is the trigger but
> CK> also other FPCs are contributing in the shared data
> CK> buffer which means you would need to turn off one by
> CK> one and see if the error stops. If you are left with
> CK> the OC-48 then I would suggest to replace this
> CK> particular FPC. To sanity check also other links of the
> CK> router if possible.
> CK>
> CK> Check also the message log if you ever have seen
> CK> anytime ECC error reported. Just one of them is already
> CK> enough to give you some hints as you would not need to
> CK> do above isolation work
> CK>
> CK> hope this helps
> CK> Josef
> CK>
> CK> PS: yes I do have seen such symptoms in the past
> CK> and not only on one vendor.
> CK>
> CK>
> CK>
> CK> Friday, October 20, 2006, 8:36:09 PM, you wrote:
> CK>
> CK>>
> CK>>
> CK>> Hi All,
> CK>>
> CK>> I am experiencing a strange issue between 2 m40 core routers CK>> connect through an oc48 link CK>> CK>> I experience packet loss only when sending packets between 293 and CK>> 599 bytes.
> CK>>
> CK>> I am also speaking to cold telecom about the issue to see if it's a
> CK>
> CK>> problem with the sonet link, but as of now the link is not taking CK>> any errors or alarms.
> CK>>
> CK>> Anyone seen anything strange like this before?
> CK>>
> CK>> ckoch at core2.lhr3> ping rapid 212.71.229.25 count 10000 size 300 CK>> PING 212.71.229.25 (212.71.229.25): 300 data bytes CK>> CK>>
> CK>
> CK> !.!!.!!.!!!!.!.!....!!.!!!!!..!..!!.!!!..!!.!!....!!.!...!!!...!.!.!..!.
> CK>> .!!...!....!..!.!.!!.!!.!!....!.!!!!!!..!..!.!!.!..!!.!!^C
> CK>> --- 212.71.229.25 ping statistics --- CK>> 129 packets transmitted, 66 packets received, 48% packet loss CK>> round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 1.023/1.640/34.095/4.035 ms CK>> CK>> ckoch at core2.lhr3> ping rapid 212.71.229.25 count 10000 size 400 CK>> PING 212.71.229.25 (212.71.229.25): 400 data bytes CK>> !!!!!!!!.!!!!!...!!^C CK>> --- 212.71.229.25 ping statistics --- 20 packets transmitted, 15 CK>> packets received, 25% packet loss round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = CK>> 1.074/1.111/1.348/0.071 ms CK>> CK>> ckoch at core2.lhr3> ping rapid 212.71.229.25 count 10000 size 500 CK>> PING 212.71.229.25 (212.71.229.25): 500 data bytes CK>> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.!^C
> CK>> --- 212.71.229.25 ping statistics --- CK>> 49 packets transmitted, 46 packets received, 6% packet loss CK>> round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 1.141/1.202/2.514/0.210 ms CK>> CK>> ckoch at core2.lhr3> ping rapid 212.71.229.25 count 10000 size 600 CK>> PING 212.71.229.25 (212.71.229.25): 600 data bytes CK>> CK>>
> CK>
> CK> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> CK>>
> CK>>
> CK>
> CK> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> CK>>
> CK>>
> CK>
> CK> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> CK>>
> CK>>
> CK>
> CK> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> CK>>
> CK>>
> CK>
> CK> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> CK>>
> CK>>
> CK>
> CK> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> CK>>
> CK>>
> CK>
> CK> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> CK>>
> CK>>
> CK>
> CK> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> CK>>
> CK>>
> CK>
> CK> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> CK>>
> CK>>
> CK>
> CK> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> CK>>
> CK>>
> CK>
> CK> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> CK>>
> CK>>
> CK>
> CK> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> CK>> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!^C
> CK>> --- 212.71.229.25 ping statistics --- CK>> 955 packets transmitted, 954 packets received, 0% packet loss CK>> round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 1.183/1.526/36.436/1.817 ms CK>> CK>> koch at core2.lhr3> ping rapid 212.71.229.25 count 10000 size 292 CK>> PING 212.71.229.25 (212.71.229.25): 292 data bytes CK>> CK>>
> CK>
> CK> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> CK>>
> CK>>
> CK>
> CK> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> CK>>
> CK>>
> CK>
> CK> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> CK>>
> CK>>
> CK>
> CK> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> CK>>
> CK>>
> CK>
> CK> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> CK>>
> CK>>
> CK>
> CK> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> CK>>
> CK>>
> CK>
> CK> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> CK>>
> CK>>
> CK>
> CK> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> CK>>
> CK>>
> CK>
> CK> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> CK>>
> CK>>
> CK>
> CK> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> CK>>
> CK>>
> CK>
> CK> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> CK>>
> CK>>
> CK>
> CK> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> CK>> !!!!!!!!^C!
> CK>> --- 212.71.229.25 ping statistics --- CK>> 916 packets transmitted, 916 packets received, 0% packet loss CK>> round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 0.988/1.146/9.918/1.061 ms CK>> CK>> ckoch at core2.lhr3> ping rapid 212.71.229.25 count 10000 size 293 CK>> PING 212.71.229.25 (212.71.229.25): 293 data bytes ..!!!.!^C CK>> CK>> Christian CK>> _______________________________________________
> CK>> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net CK>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
> CK>>
> CK>>
> CK>>
> CK>
> CK>
> CK>
> CK>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
>
More information about the juniper-nsp
mailing list