Netgate Discussion Forum
    • Categories
    • Recent
    • Tags
    • Popular
    • Users
    • Search
    • Register
    • Login

    2.5.2 : IPV4 Gateway status unknown / Dpinger mystery

    Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Routing and Multi WAN
    4 Posts 1 Posters 778 Views 1 Watching
    Loading More Posts
    • Oldest to Newest
    • Newest to Oldest
    • Most Votes
    Reply
    • Reply as topic
    Log in to reply
    This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
    • J Offline
      Juve
      last edited by

      After upgrading to 2.5.2 from 2.4.5p1 I have a cluster showing strange behaviour (on both nodes)

      Gateway monitoring is showing an unknown status. After restarting, the gateway will be on but for a short time and with high RTTSD.

      I did capture trafic : I see echo request and echo reply.
      I did ping manually through shell and it is ok
      I did execute dpinger manually and it returns 0 0 0, it also return 0 0 0 in the sock file
      Dpinger give no error
      I did truss the dpinger to analyse the calls
      I did check the source code of dpinger

      And I am here trying to figure out what is happening because I can't understand why dpinger isn't able to read the receive values.

      Has anyone already experienced this ?

      J 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • J Offline
        Juve @Juve
        last edited by Juve

        Hum,
        I have juste noticed that even the ping command isn't capable of measuring the time:

        PING 8.8.8.8 (8.8.8.8): 56 data bytes
        64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=0 ttl=113 time=0.000 ms
        64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=1 ttl=112 time=0.000 ms
        64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=2 ttl=113 time=0.000 ms

        whatever I ping, it is 0ms
        And ttl is oscillating from 112 to 113, another box is 114 Stable, something happens.

        a traceroute, using UDP or ICMP mode also report every latency at 0ms .

        This is scary

        J 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • J Offline
          Juve @Juve
          last edited by

          Just look at the result of a traceroute (udp mode not ICMP).
          The machine can't compute durations, that's why dpinger is failing to report the latency.

          I am in the process of comparing every file checksum with another 2.5.2.

          traceroute to 8.8.8.8 (8.8.8.8), 64 hops max, 40 byte packets
          1 xxxxx.atlas.cogentco.com (xxxxx) 0.000 ms 0.000 ms 0.000 ms
          2 xxxxx.atlas.cogentco.com (xxxxx) 0.000 ms
          xxxxx.atlas.cogentco.com (xxxxx) 0.000 ms
          xxxxx.atlas.cogentco.com (xxxxx) 0.000 ms
          3 xxxxx.atlas.cogentco.com (xxxxx) 0.000 ms
          xxxxx.atlas.cogentco.com (xxxxx) 0.000 ms
          xxxxx.atlas.cogentco.com (xxxxx) 0.000 ms
          4 be2471.ccr41.par01.atlas.cogentco.com (130.117.49.37) 0.000 ms
          be2472.ccr42.par01.atlas.cogentco.com (130.117.49.121) 0.000 ms 0.000 ms
          5 be2102.ccr32.par04.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.61.18) 0.000 ms
          be3183.ccr31.par04.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.38.66) 0.000 ms
          be3184.ccr31.par04.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.38.158) 0.000 ms
          6 be2151.agr21.par04.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.61.34) 0.000 ms
          be3169.agr21.par04.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.37.238) 0.000 ms
          be2151.agr21.par04.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.61.34) 0.000 ms
          7 tata.par04.atlas.cogentco.com (130.117.15.70) 0.000 ms 0.000 ms 0.000 ms
          8 72.14.212.77 (72.14.212.77) 0.000 ms 1000.000 ms 0.000 ms
          9 108.170.244.225 (108.170.244.225) 0.000 ms
          108.170.245.1 (108.170.245.1) 0.000 ms
          108.170.244.161 (108.170.244.161) 0.000 ms
          10 142.251.49.133 (142.251.49.133) 0.000 ms
          209.85.244.155 (209.85.244.155) 0.000 ms
          216.239.59.209 (216.239.59.209) 0.000 ms
          11 dns.google (8.8.8.8) 0.000 ms 0.000 ms 0.000 ms

          J 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • J Offline
            Juve @Juve
            last edited by

            I narrowed it to SMP issue.
            Reverting to 1 CPU isn't showing this behaviour.

            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • First post
              Last post
            Copyright 2025 Rubicon Communications LLC (Netgate). All rights reserved.