I am working with a web site that is putting in a new server soon and
was told that the co-lo they are using is about to change isps. I guess
the new network is not up yet since I cannot get traceroute to even get
to the point where it tries to get to a machine on the network when I
try to
That helped, thank you.
On Sunday 29 June 2003 08:36 pm, you wrote:
> On Sunday 29 June 2003 22:42, Michael S. Dunsavage wrote:
> > Using traceroute I can't seem to get anywhere..
> >
> > but on a windows box I get all the results. Any idea why?
>
> Try
On Sunday 29 June 2003 22:42, Michael S. Dunsavage wrote:
> Using traceroute I can't seem to get anywhere..
>
> but on a windows box I get all the results. Any idea why?
>
>
Try using "-I" (ICMP) and see if it makes a difference.
Regards, Mike Klinke
Using traceroute I can't seem to get anywhere..
but on a windows box I get all the results. Any idea why?
On linux :
[EMAIL PROTECTED] root]# traceroute www.redhat.com
traceroute to www.redhat.com (66.187.232.56), 30 hops max, 38 byte packets
1 modem (192.168.254.254) 4.687 ms
My apologies for the lack of a subject. It was an unintentional screwup
and my "unsend" button just wouldn't retrieve the message. :)
Your response pointed me in the correct direction. THANKS! I didn't
know that my traceroute was using UDP vs windows' using ICMP. That
You're missing a subject on your original post. Honestly, it will help
you get a response. If you can't be bothered to give your post a
subject, how can you expect others to bother opening your message?
Try 'traceroute -I' I had the same problem once when I was behind
>
> > Yes the computer is connected to a network, which is
> > mine, and I do have a linksys router/firewall, but I
> > can do tracert from my windows box ok, but not from
> > Linux.
>
> Apples and oranges. Most if not all Windows traceroute clients use icm
I checked under /etc/serivces and the ports 33434 and
33490 are not commented out, but I am not familiar
with iptables.
I have stopped iptables from booting up when the
machine stops but how can I turn it all of the way
off?
thanks
-Chris
>Traceroute from linux goes on udp ports unl
These are the upd ports for traceroute (from linux)
33434:33490
- Original Message -
From: "Mihai Tanasescu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2003 10:55 PM
Subject: Re: traceroute
> Traceroute from linux goes on udp ports un
Traceroute from linux goes on udp ports unlike tracert from windows (I
think this one from windows uses icmp)
Maybe you have those udp ports blocked from your firewall.
- Original Message -
From: "CM Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday,
and oranges. Most if not all Windows traceroute clients use icmp whereas most
*nix traceroute clients use udp unless you tell it to use icmp.
>
> Even simple command like root
>
> traceroute olug.org
>
> still get
>
> 1 * * *
> 2 * * *
> 3 * * *
> 4 * * *
Yes the computer is connected to a network, which is
mine, and I do have a linksys router/firewall, but I
can do tracert from my windows box ok, but not from
Linux.
Even simple command like root
traceroute olug.org
still get
1 * * *
2 * * *
3 * * *
4 * * *
5 * * *
6 * * *
?
thanks
hi chris,
a few things. what does the -l option stand for ? try using traceroute
without any options.
if your computer is connected in a network which is administered by
someone else, make sure they dont have a firewall. to check this you can
first do a traceroute to one of the machines in the
As root, if I use the command traceroute, for example
I type:
traceroute -l olug.org
The only output I get is:
1 * * *
2 * * *
3 * * *
4 * * *
Why does it do this and why am I not able to see the
ip addresses?
Iptables does not startup but if I do iptables -l,
[EMAIL PROTECTED
Hello,
I'm trying to define an iptables rule or set of rules to allow traceroute
IN, and perhaps limit it too.
This is what I have, but it still isn't working:
# allow certain types of ICMP, drop all else
$IPTABLES -A INPUT -p icmp --icmp-type 0 -j ACCEPT
$I
here, not that I need it, it is just annoying.
>
Did you try "traceroute -i ppp0 "? That always worked for me.
But I have not used it for a while - the last time was on a Rh 5.2
machine.
Mikkel
--
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons,
I have.
Brian
Did you try "traceroute -i ppp0 "? That always worked for me.
But I have not used it for a while - the last time was on a Rh 5.2
machine.
Mikkel
"If you're not one of us, you are o
Fri, 20 Apr 2001, Thornton Prime wrote:
>
>
> At 06:55 PM 4/20/01 -0600, you wrote:
> >Within the last week my mail quit sending out. I get messages saying
"No
> >route to host". Mail works internally so it does send, it is a routing
> >error. When I run a trac
On Fri, 20 Apr 2001, Thornton Prime wrote:
>
>
> At 06:55 PM 4/20/01 -0600, you wrote:
> >Within the last week my mail quit sending out. I get messages saying "No
> >route to host". Mail works internally so it does send, it is a routing
> >error. When I run a
At 06:55 PM 4/20/01 -0600, you wrote:
>Within the last week my mail quit sending out. I get messages saying "No
>route to host". Mail works internally so it does send, it is a routing
>error. When I run a traceroute to an outside address, it does nothing.
>Telnet, ftp, ww
internally so it does send, it is a routing
>error. When I run a traceroute to an outside address, it does nothing.
>Telnet, ftp, www etc all work fine. I have been keeping up2date on all the
>updates, and this may be a result of one of them, but not
Within the last week my mail quit sending out. I get messages saying "No
route to host". Mail works internally so it does send, it is a routing
error. When I run a traceroute to an outside address, it does nothing.
Telnet, ftp, www etc all work fine. I have been keeping up2date on all t
ot on the server.
> > is it some kind of routing problem
> >
> > On Fri, 5 Jan 2001, David Brett wrote:
> >
> > > You probably can't, try doing traceroute -n x.x.x.x. If this fails then
> > > the network you are on does not allow pings. If it does work
On Fri, 5 Jan 2001, Steve Lee wrote:
> it still doesn't work.
> but it works in my windows machine.
> ??
> just not on the server.
> is it some kind of routing problem
>
> On Fri, 5 Jan 2001, David Brett wrote:
>
> > You probably can't, try doing tr
You probably have your firewall set to reject the final traceroute receipt
packets. I think it's icmp port 4 or 8. Well, one of those between 0-8.
Drew
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Steve Lee
Sent: Friday, Ja
it still doesn't work.
but it works in my windows machine.
??
just not on the server.
is it some kind of routing problem
On Fri, 5 Jan 2001, David Brett wrote:
> You probably can't, try doing traceroute -n x.x.x.x. If this fails then
> the network you are on does not allow pi
You probably can't, try doing traceroute -n x.x.x.x. If this fails then
the network you are on does not allow pings. If it does work, the problem
is DNS lookup issue.
david
On Fri, 5 Jan 2001, Steve Lee wrote:
> when i do a traceroute i get a bunch of
>
> 1 * * *
&g
blocked by that last
rule before accounting, including traces and pings using the first five
ports. Perhaps throwing a rule in there to allow ports 4, 3, and other
traceroute ports for the icmp protocol would let traceroute through. I
couldn't tell you what the other ports are. My firewall ha
Hi Drew,
> One
> of the first 5 ICMP ports has to be enabled to receive packets, not just
> responses with the !-y option,
Just a little correction here. You can't use the -y option for ICMP packets,
only for TCP.
Bye,
Try using "mtr" instead of "traceroute". It comes with RH7.0, dunno about
RH6.x but easily added. It is a much nicer util than standard traceroute.
Graham...
At 16:19 16/11/2000, you wrote:
>Yeah I could see how that would be a problem except for I didn't change
Yeah I could see how that would be a problem except for I didn't change
anything and it worked the night before and for the past month. And the
machines behind it can do a traceroute fine. I use ipfwadm here is my
ruleset
#==[Flush...All My Rules]=#
ipfwadm
** Reply to message from "Drew Hunt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Thu, 16
Nov 2000 06:46:08 -0700
> I'm running RH 6.2, but have the same problem. I traced it to the firewall,
> having pulled it down momentarily and having the traceroute work perfectly.
> One of th
I'm
running RH 6.2, but have the same problem. I traced it to the firewall,
having pulled it down momentarily and having the traceroute work
perfectly. One of the first 5 ICMP ports has to be enabled to receive
packets, not just responses with the !-y option, but I don't reme
- Original Message -
From: Terry Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2000 10:23 PM
Subject: (no subject)
> When I run traceroute on my Red Hat 7.0 I get
> 1 * * * *
> 2 * * * *
> 3 * * * *
>
> Now the catch it
When I run traceroute on my Red Hat 7.0 I
get
1 * * * *
2 * * * *
3 * * * *
Now the catch it used to work, and my machines
connected through this one using ipchains it works correctly. I have
removed traceroute and recompiled. Checked to make sure I don't have
something blockin
ne of bull because I'm sure there is a way
%-> around this or a
%-> *fix* if you will. Can anyone shed some light on this matter, please?
Tracerouting works fine here... I'm behind a NAT'ing router. If the admin is
blocking all ICMP and UDP (traceroute can use either) then it
On Tue, Sep 05, 2000 at 10:11:02AM -0700, Steve Curry wrote:
> Hello all,
>
>
> I'm currently locking horns with our network admin because he tells me it's
> impossible to do traceroutes to the outside world if you are using NAT and
> are behind a PIX firewall (I assume the same with any firewal
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Traceroute woes!
>
> Hello all,
>
>
> I'm currently locking horns with our network admin because he tells me
> it's
> impossible to do traceroutes to the outside world if you are using NAT and
> are behind a PIX f
Hello all,
I'm currently locking horns with our network admin because he tells me it's
impossible to do traceroutes to the outside world if you are using NAT and
are behind a PIX firewall (I assume the same with any firewall). I don't
believe this line of bull because I'm sure there is a way aro
>In FTP95Pro, along with the standard WhoIs, Ping, and Finger
>functionality,
>there is also the TraceRoute program. Since these other bits of >software
>originated in Unix and were taken to Windoze, I would guess that >there's
and
>easy user-level way to do a trace
In FTP95Pro, along with the standard WhoIs, Ping, and Finger functionality,
there is also the TraceRoute program. Since these other bits of software
originated in Unix and were taken to Windoze, I would guess that there's and
easy user-level way to do a trace route in Unix.
Is there? And
How aboout traceroute?
[root@firewall /root]# locate traceroute
/usr/man/man8/traceroute.8
/usr/sbin/traceroute
/var/catman/cat8/traceroute.8.gz
[root@firewall /root]# traceroute --help
Version 1.4a5
Usage: traceroute [-dFInrvx] [-g gateway] [-i iface] [-f first_ttl] [-m max_ttl]
[ -p
On Mon, 4 May 1998, Steven Krikstone wrote:
> When I run:
>
> [root@router1 sdl]# /usr/sbin/traceroute 205.160.77.196
> traceroute: Warning: Multiple interfaces found; using 205.160.77.162 @
> eth0
> traceroute to 205.160.77.196 (205.160.77.196), 30 hops max, 40 b
>When I run:
>[root@router1 sdl]# /usr/sbin/traceroute 205.160.77.196
>traceroute: Warning: Multiple interfaces found; using >205.160.77.162 @
>eth0
>traceroute to 205.160.77.196 (205.160.77.196), 30 hops max, 40 >byte
>packets
>1 205.160.77.126 (205.160.77.126) 27
When I run:
[root@router1 sdl]# /usr/sbin/traceroute 205.160.77.196
traceroute: Warning: Multiple interfaces found; using 205.160.77.162 @
eth0
traceroute to 205.160.77.196 (205.160.77.196), 30 hops max, 40 byte
packets
1 205.160.77.126 (205.160.77.126) 27.693 ms 26.850 ms 26.588 ms
2
45 matches
Mail list logo
