Herbert Xu wrote:
On Mon, May 08, 2006 at 08:28:32AM +0000, Marco Berizzi wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~# ping 10.49.59.23
> PING 10.49.59.23 (10.49.59.23) 56(84) bytes of data.
> 64 bytes from 10.49.59.23: icmp_seq=1 ttl=247 time=91.9 ms
> 64 bytes from 10.49.59.23: icmp_seq=2 ttl=247 time=49.3 ms
> 64 bytes from 10.49.59.23: icmp_seq=3 ttl=247 time=106 ms
> 64 bytes from 10.49.59.23: icmp_seq=4 ttl=247 time=74.3 ms
>
> --- 10.49.59.23 ping statistics ---
> 4 packets transmitted, 4 received, 0% packet loss, time 2998ms
> rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 49.316/80.460/106.257/21.241 ms
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~# cd /tmp/
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/tmp# tcpdump -v -p -n ip host 10.49.59.23 >
> /tmp/NULL-10.49.59.23 &
> [1] 18981
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/tmp# tcpdump: listening on eth0, link-type EN10MB
(Ethernet),
> capture size 96 bytes
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/tmp# ping 10.49.59.23
> PING 10.49.59.23 (10.49.59.23) 56(84) bytes of data.
>
> --- 10.49.59.23 ping statistics ---
> 8 packets transmitted, 0 received, 100% packet loss, time 6999ms
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/tmp# fg
> tcpdump -v -p -n ip host 10.49.59.23 >/tmp/NULL-10.49.59.23
> 101 packets captured
> 101 packets received by filter
> 0 packets dropped by kernel
Yes this is really weird. The only thing I can think of is that it
somehow managed to put some bogus entry into the conntrack table.
What happens if you do
grep 10.49.59.23 /proc/net/ip_conntrack
before and after the tcpdump?
I'm not able to reproduce it :-[[[
Today mimosa is running 2.6.17.4, mon May 8 mimosa was running
2.6.16.12
If you want I could downgrade to 2.6.16.12 and see if I'm able
to reproduce it.
Sorry.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
