On Mon, 25 Oct 2010 23:37:44 +0100, Adam Hardy wrote: > Camaleón on 25/10/10 11:04, wrote:
>>> Seriously slightly quirky, but now it's better than windows again, >>> which is the way it should be. >> >> The only thing it could make a difference between Windows "tracert" and >> Linux "traceroute" is iptables but I 'm not sure about that (how can >> iptables interfere with traceroute, by blocking/filtering packets? :-?) > > I didn't mean linux traceroute was quirky in execution - I just meant > the options were not ideal for me. The dumbed-down version on windows > was just right for my abilities and knowledge and what I wanted. But > then if I hadn't used the windows traceroute first I might never have > developed such preconceptions. Well, Windows traceroute defaults to icmp while linux one seems to be using udp which can be problematic with firewalls, so the windows counterpart is a bit more "sensible" for today's routing diagnostics. But true is that there is a slightly difference in the output we get from a windows box traceroute and linux so besides the traceroute utility itself there must be something in between which interferes/alters the results. Greetings, -- Camaleón -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/pan.2010.10.26.06.04...@gmail.com
