14 Oct
2018
14 Oct
'18
3 p.m.
Tnx Paul.
I can ping your IP ampr successfully from 44.182.21.1.
This tends to be strange.
On 14.10.2018 16:11, Paul wrote:
No response from here , despite sending to the correct
destination
gateway address
also tested ear;ier same result today
14:05:44.045967 IP ###.###.###.### > 89.33.44.100: IP 44.131.244.1 >
44.182.21.1: ICMP echo request, id 26770, seq 3, length 64 (ipip-proto-4)
14:06:44.050572 IP ###.###.###.### > 89.33.44.100: IP 44.131.244.1 >
44.182.21.1: ICMP echo request, id 26770, seq 4, length 64 (ipip-proto-4)
14:07:26.031589 IP ###.###.###.### > 89.33.44.100: IP
44.131.244.1.35796 > 44.182.21.1.59001: Flags [S], seq 269803896, win
9440, options [mss 472,sackOK,TS val 517290616 ecr 0,nop,wscale 7],
length 0 (ipip-proto-4)
14:07:26.040969 IP ###.###.###.### > 89.33.44.100: IP
44.131.244.1.35797 > 44.182.21.1.59001: Flags [S], seq 2420208604, win
9440, options [mss 472,sackOK,TS val 517290618 ecr 0,nop,wscale 7],
length 0 (ipip-proto-4)
14:07:26.291767 IP ###.###.###.### > 89.33.44.100: IP
44.131.244.1.35798 > 44.182.21.1.59001: Flags [S], seq 2780115569, win
9440, options [mss 472,sackOK,TS val 517290681 ecr 0,nop,wscale 7],
length 0 (ipip-proto-4)
14:07:27.029992 IP ###.###.###.### > 89.33.44.100: IP
44.131.244.1.35796 > 44.182.21.1.59001: Flags [S], seq 269803896, win
9440, options [mss 472,sackOK,TS val 517290866 ecr 0,nop,wscale 7],
length 0 (ipip-proto-4)
14:07:27.037992 IP ###.###.###.### > 89.33.44.100: IP
44.131.244.1.35797 > 44.182.21.1.59001: Flags [S], seq 2420208604, win
9440, options [mss 472,sackOK,TS val 517290868 ecr 0,nop,wscale 7],
length 0 (ipip-proto-4)
14:07:27.289956 IP ###.###.###.### > 89.33.44.100: IP
44.131.244.1.35798 > 44.182.21.1.59001: Flags [S], seq 2780115569, win
9440, options [mss 472,sackOK,TS val 517290931 ecr 0,nop,wscale 7],
length 0 (ipip-proto-4)
14:07:29.033974 IP ###.###.###.### > 89.33.44.100: IP
44.131.244.1.35796 > 44.182.21.1.59001: Flags [
Paul
On 14/10/2018 13:38, Brian Kantor wrote:
On Sun, Oct 14, 2018 at 12:43:05PM +0300, Marius
Petrescu wrote:
> I can not find an explanation for this, other than that there is some
> route caching involved.
>
> Maybe some of you have ideas/explanation on this behavior, and how to
> fix it.
>
>
> ______________________________________________
> This email has been scanned by Netintelligence
> http://www.netintelligence.com/email
>
>