Hello All,

RE: PING Times vs. TRACERT Times

----------------------------------------------------------------------
The times returned by PING and the trace from my
PC are as expected, but the times returned by
TRACERT on the 3000 are many times higher.
Does anyone know why the trace times from the
3000 are reported as they are?  Are they accurate?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

The TRACERT times on the 3k are accurate, but
they are not counting just the network delay, they
are also counting the delay in processing the
request at the host.

The TRACERT on the 3k is the original contributed
free ware TRACERT with the hooks added in the 3k
at the IP and the ICMP layers.   The original specs
for the TRACERT include sending an IP datagram
with the time-to-live set to 1 and then wait for the
first in line host or IP gateway/router to reply with an
ICMP message of type=11 "Time Exceeded for a
Datagram".  Then the TRACERT needs to do an IP
to NAME lookup of the address returned in the ICMP
message.  The time-to-live then is incremented by 1
and the IP datagram is sent to the destination host
again... and again...

The TRACERT on the PC is much faster... I did a
link trace of this in the past and found it was not
following the original standard of time-to-live and
ICMP messages... Sorry i don't recollect what it was
doing...

Regards,

James Hofmeister
Hewlett Packard Support - Systems Engineering
P.S. My Ideals are my own, not necessarily my employers.

Customers + HP = Everything Is Possible







________________________________________________________________
Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today
Only $9.95 per month!
Visit www.juno.com

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *