Ping and Tracert - Networking

This is a discussion on Ping and Tracert - Networking ; I was under the impression that Ping and Tracert were similar utilities with tracert giving a wee bit more information about the connection. Why is it then, if I ping bbc.co.uk I get response times of around 30ms whereas if ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 31

Thread: Ping and Tracert

  1. Ping and Tracert

    I was under the impression that Ping and Tracert were similar utilities
    with tracert giving a wee bit more information about the connection.

    Why is it then, if I ping bbc.co.uk I get response times of around 30ms
    whereas if I tracert the same address it appears to take much longer.

    Geoff Lane

  2. Re: Ping and Tracert

    On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 16:35:06 +0100, Geoff Lane wrote:
    > I was under the impression that Ping and Tracert were similar utilities
    > with tracert giving a wee bit more information about the connection.
    >
    > Why is it then, if I ping bbc.co.uk I get response times of around 30ms
    > whereas if I tracert the same address it appears to take much longer.


    tracert is going to be timing each node/hop to bbc.co.uk with dns
    look ups along the way,

    Try again with
    tracert -d bbc.co.uk
    to suppress DNS look ups


  3. Re: Ping and Tracert

    On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 16:35:06 +0100, Geoff Lane wrote:

    > I was under the impression that Ping and Tracert were similar utilities
    > with tracert giving a wee bit more information about the connection.


    There is no tracert in Linux. Why are you asking a windows question here?
    Are the windows lusers too stupid to answer it?

  4. Re: Ping and Tracert

    On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 16:35:06 +0100, Geoff Lane wrote:

    > I was under the impression that Ping and Tracert were similar utilities
    > with tracert giving a wee bit more information about the connection.


    I've never heard of "tracert". Perhaps you mean "traceroute"? Perhaps
    the admin that runs your computer put tracert in as an abbreviation
    (though I'd have used perhaps "trt" to maximize the minimization {8^).

    Traceroute - at least the version I use; I know that there are a couple
    about - can transmit either "high" UDP or ICMP packets. Ping, as far as
    I know, only uses ICMP. Traceroute defaults to UDP, so naive use of the
    two programs could yield different results if ICMP and UDP packets are
    treated differently.

    Note that there's also a tcptraceroute because TCP can be treated
    differently than ICMP or UDP.

    Traceroute also sends packets with a slowly increasing TTL, thus checking
    time for each hop. Ping doesn't do this as far as I know. But this "hop
    testing" needs to be taken with a grain of salt, in that hops in one
    direction may not correspond to the hops in the other direction (routing
    being naturally asymmetrical).

    Ping does have a "flood" option which can be useful in some cases (ie.
    like the old "spray" utility); I don't recall seeing this in traceroute.

    - Andrew

  5. Re: Ping and Tracert

    Dave Uhring wrote:

    >> I was under the impression that Ping and Tracert were similar utilities
    >> with tracert giving a wee bit more information about the connection.

    >
    > There is no tracert in Linux. Why are you asking a windows question here?


    I was under the impression that the message header should have shown
    that I posted to two groups (uk.comp.home-networking) and the
    Followup-To: this group. I've checked it and it doesn't show this other
    group.

    As for my typing tracert, perhaps I should have said 'or traceroute in Linux

    > Are the windows lusers too stupid to answer it?


    Not really but Linux users are generally more techie :-)

    Geoff Lane


  6. Re: Ping and Tracert

    Bit Twister wrote:

    >> I was under the impression that Ping and Tracert were similar utilities
    >> with tracert giving a wee bit more information about the connection.
    >>
    >> Why is it then, if I ping bbc.co.uk I get response times of around 30ms
    >> whereas if I tracert the same address it appears to take much longer.

    >
    > tracert is going to be timing each node/hop to bbc.co.uk with dns
    > look ups along the way,
    >
    > Try again with
    > tracert -d bbc.co.uk
    > to suppress DNS look ups


    Right, done that and from my machine it gives 7 hops to bbc, all except
    my local machine give around 32ms

    Ping gives similar times but doesn't ping still have 7 hops to reach the
    bbc site.

    Geoff Lane



  7. Re: Ping and Tracert

    On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 17:34:26 +0100, Geoff Lane wrote:
    >
    > Right, done that and from my machine it gives 7 hops to bbc, all except
    > my local machine give around 32ms
    >
    > Ping gives similar times but doesn't ping still have 7 hops to reach the
    > bbc site.


    Yes, but ping is not testing each hop like tracert.

  8. Re: Ping and Tracert

    Andrew Gideon wrote:

    >> I was under the impression that Ping and Tracert were similar utilities
    >> with tracert giving a wee bit more information about the connection.

    >
    > I've never heard of "tracert". Perhaps you mean "traceroute"?


    Yes, quite right, tracert is windows version.

    Thanks for follow up explanation, I was forgetting that both commands
    use different protocols.

    Geoff Lane

  9. Re: Ping and Tracert

    On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 18:50:00 +0100, Geoff Lane wrote:

    > Yes, quite right, tracert is windows version.


    I don't see why CLI or X access would make any difference.

    - Andrew

  10. Re: Ping and Tracert

    On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 17:27:19 +0100, Geoff Lane wrote:
    > Dave Uhring wrote:
    >
    >>> I was under the impression that Ping and Tracert were similar
    >>> utilities with tracert giving a wee bit more information about the
    >>> connection.

    >>
    >> There is no tracert in Linux. Why are you asking a windows question
    >> here?

    >
    > I was under the impression that the message header should have shown
    > that I posted to two groups (uk.comp.home-networking) and the
    > Followup-To: this group. I've checked it and it doesn't show this other
    > group.


    And what does that have to do with asking a question about a windows
    utility?

    > As for my typing tracert, perhaps I should have said 'or traceroute in
    > Linux


    Had you asked about traceroute I would have suggested that you read the
    man page for traceroute which fully describes its operation. Then
    compare that to the description of ping.

    If you don't like being told to do a little reading then FOAD.

    >> Are the windows lusers too stupid to answer it?

    >
    > Not really but Linux users are generally more techie :-)


    We do read the documentation which comes with our systems.

  11. Re: Ping and Tracert

    Geoff Lane wrote:
    > I was under the impression that Ping and Tracert were similar utilities
    > with tracert giving a wee bit more information about the connection.


    The Windows ping and tracert utilities both send ICMP Echo Request
    packets. The tracert utility sends them in sets of three with increasing
    TTLs, starting with one, which (generally) gives a trace of the route
    packets take from source to destination (the reverse route may be
    different).

    > Why is it then, if I ping bbc.co.uk I get response times of around 30ms
    > whereas if I tracert the same address it appears to take much longer.


    Pass; I get the same here.

    Alex

  12. Re: Ping and Tracert

    On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 19:45:53 +0100, Alex Fraser wrote:

    > The Windows ping and tracert utilities


    Are there different ping and traceroute used via X than via the CLI?
    Otherwise, I cannot see the difference made by whether or not one is
    running under a windowed environment.

    - Andrew

  13. Re: Ping and Tracert

    Alex Fraser wrote:
    > Geoff Lane wrote:
    >> I was under the impression that Ping and Tracert were similar
    >> utilities with tracert giving a wee bit more information about the
    >> connection.

    >
    > The Windows ping and tracert utilities both send ICMP Echo Request
    > packets. The tracert utility sends them in sets of three with increasing
    > TTLs, starting with one, which (generally) gives a trace of the route
    > packets take from source to destination (the reverse route may be
    > different).
    >
    >> Why is it then, if I ping bbc.co.uk I get response times of around
    >> 30ms whereas if I tracert the same address it appears to take much
    >> longer.

    >
    > Pass; I get the same here.


    I get the same times for ping and traceroute -I www.bbc.co.uk.

    Maybe you weren't hitting the same server or it's a tracert thing.

    Andy.

  14. Re: Ping and Tracert

    On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 20:11:37 +0000, Andrew Gideon wrote:

    > On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 19:45:53 +0100, Alex Fraser wrote:
    >
    >> The Windows ping and tracert utilities

    >
    > Are there different ping and traceroute used via X than via the CLI?
    > Otherwise, I cannot see the difference made by whether or not one is
    > running under a windowed environment.


    He's referring to Microsoft Windows, not X Windows.

  15. Re: Ping and Tracert


    >> Are there different ping and traceroute used via X than via the CLI?
    >> Otherwise, I cannot see the difference made by whether or not one is
    >> running under a windowed environment.

    >
    > He's referring to Microsoft Windows, not X Windows.


    Eh? Seriously? Why not run CP/M? Isn't it time to upgrade? Even Apple
    has finally done away with their klunker of an OS and shifted to a UNIX.

    - Andrew

    P.S. Or did my leg come off from someone pulling it just now?

  16. Re: Ping and Tracert

    On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 23:46:15 +0000, Andrew Gideon wrote:

    >> He's referring to Microsoft Windows, not X Windows.

    >
    > Eh? Seriously? Why not run CP/M? Isn't it time to upgrade? Even
    > Apple has finally done away with their klunker of an OS and shifted to a
    > UNIX.


    CP/M didn't have any networking capability unless somebody added it after
    I quit using it in 1985. So it wasn't much good for running either ping
    or traceroute

    > P.S. Or did my leg come off from someone pulling it just now?


    Asking windows questions in Linux NGs is pulling everybody's legs.

  17. Re: Ping and Tracert

    In article , Geoff Lane
    datemasde.t1m@gishpuppy.com says...
    > I was under the impression that Ping and Tracert were similar utilities
    > with tracert giving a wee bit more information about the connection.
    >
    > Why is it then, if I ping bbc.co.uk I get response times of around 30ms
    > whereas if I tracert the same address it appears to take much longer.
    >

    Ping sends a ICMP packet to the server, which sends an acknowledgement
    back (if it's running the ping service). Traceroute sends an ICMP
    packet which has expired, which causes an error at the first router it
    reaches - the router returns an error message which includes the
    router's details that traceroute then displays. It then sends another
    packet that hasn't quite expired, which will pass through the first
    router but be caught by the next, and so on down the line. Routers are
    optimised to pass packets very quickly, but error messages are a lower
    priority so it will take longer for the router to return an error
    message than it will for it to forward a good packet. The final hop of
    the traceroute to the destination address also prompts an error response
    (port unreachable), while ping servers do nothing but reply to ping
    requests all day, so they're pretty good at what they do. :-)

    Why do you keep crossposting to uk.comp.home-networking but quietly
    setting followup to comp.os.linux.networking? I don't read that group.

  18. Re: Ping and Tracert

    On 2008-04-13, Dave Uhring wrote:
    > On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 17:27:19 +0100, Geoff Lane wrote:
    >> Dave Uhring wrote:
    >>
    >>>> I was under the impression that Ping and Tracert were similar
    >>>> utilities with tracert giving a wee bit more information about the
    >>>> connection.
    >>>
    >>> There is no tracert in Linux. Why are you asking a windows question
    >>> here?

    >>
    >> I was under the impression that the message header should have shown
    >> that I posted to two groups (uk.comp.home-networking) and the
    >> Followup-To: this group. I've checked it and it doesn't show this other
    >> group.

    >
    > And what does that have to do with asking a question about a windows
    > utility?
    >
    >> As for my typing tracert, perhaps I should have said 'or traceroute in
    >> Linux

    >
    > Had you asked about traceroute I would have suggested that you read the
    > man page for traceroute which fully describes its operation. Then
    > compare that to the description of ping.
    >
    > If you don't like being told to do a little reading then FOAD.


    I seem to lack imagination this evening - all I can come up with for
    FOAD is: "f... off a...... dog". But that has to be wrong :-)

    >
    >>> Are the windows lusers too stupid to answer it?

    >>
    >> Not really but Linux users are generally more techie :-)

    >
    > We do read the documentation which comes with our systems.



    --


  19. Re: Ping and Tracert

    Lol.. I did not know that there still were some relics alive that feed
    the Windows vs Linux thingy. Thought that died last century.
    Face it, these days windows and linux (and macos) are both usable OS-es
    and users get along quite well.

  20. Re: Ping and Tracert

    On Mon, 14 Apr 2008, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.os.linux.networking, in
    article , Rob Morley wrote:

    >Geoff Lane datemasde.t1m@gishpuppy.com says...


    >> I was under the impression that Ping and Tracert were similar utilities
    >> with tracert giving a wee bit more information about the connection.


    >Ping sends a ICMP packet to the server, which sends an acknowledgement
    >back (if it's running the ping service). Traceroute sends an ICMP
    >packet which has expired, which causes an error at the first router it
    >reaches - the router returns an error message which includes the
    >router's details that traceroute then displays.


    Minor quibble - Tracert is the windoze version of traceroute, and it
    does use ICMP Echo (Type 8) as you describe. 'traceroute' is the
    original program that microsoft sorta copied and the original version
    used UDP packets to ports not likely to be in use (above 33434). It
    was later modified to be able to _also_ use ICMP Type 8, although not
    all versions now available have this selection.

    >The final hop of the traceroute to the destination address also prompts
    >an error response (port unreachable),


    But not for the versions using ICMP, as that protocol has no port numbers.
    Assuming the final destination is replying to pings (many people block or
    disable such responses due to abuse), the response to an ICMP style trace
    would be an echo reply (ICMP Type 0) rather than the Time Exceeded error
    message (ICMP Type 11 Code 0) sent by intermediate routers.

    >while ping servers do nothing but reply to ping requests all day, so
    >they're pretty good at what they do. :-)


    Assuming the ping is not disabled or blocked.

    >Why do you keep crossposting to uk.comp.home-networking but quietly
    >setting followup to comp.os.linux.networking? I don't read that group.


    Good question. Which group is it that you don't read?

    Old guy

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast