No subject


Tue Apr 2 00:56:56 UTC 2013


#ping 192.168.1.61
PING 192.168.1.61 (192.168.1.61) from 192.168.1.254 : 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from 192.168.1.61: icmp_seq=0 ttl=128 time=28.988 msec
64 bytes from 192.168.1.61: icmp_seq=1 ttl=128 time=16.751 msec
64 bytes from 192.168.1.61: icmp_seq=2 ttl=128 time=6.784 msec

Ping from Linux to Win98, result seems always been consistant.
-----------------------------------------------------------
And vise versa, from Win98 box:

C:\WINDOWS\Desktop>ping 192.168.1.254
Pinging 192.168.1.254 with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 192.168.1.254: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=255
Reply from 192.168.1.254: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=255
Reply from 192.168.1.254: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=255
Reply from 192.168.1.254: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=255

Ping statistics for 192.168.1.254:
    Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 2ms, Maximum =  2ms, Average =  2ms
-----------------------------------------------------------
But I noticed result may not 100% consistant ping
from Win98 to Linux box, accasionaly, especially after
some period of inactivity, it seems I got some packet 
loss when pinging from Win98 to RH7.1. That's could
be the reason errors in the log.
Pinging 192.168.1.254 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 192.168.1.254: bytes=32 time=5ms TTL=255
Reply from 192.168.1.254: Destination port unreachable.
Reply from 192.168.1.254: Destination port unreachable.
Reply from 192.168.1.254: Destination port unreachable.

Ping statistics for 192.168.1.254:
    Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 5ms, Maximum =  5ms, Average =  1ms

Isn't that strange? 3 out of 4 packets were unreachable as above,
but Win98 still reports 0% loss? 
What could cause such 'unreachable'? I have two Cisco switch
and one Farolon hub, switch/hub configuration problem? 
sorry for posting wrong place if this turns out not a dns issue.
thanks.


More information about the bind-users mailing list