Dnia 2016-06-06, pon o godzinie 11:00 -0500, David Wright pisze: > On Mon 06 Jun 2016 at 15:27:16 (+0000), Mark Fletcher wrote: > > On Mon, 6 Jun 2016 at 23:15, Santiago Vila <sanv...@unex.es> wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 10:06:54AM +1200, Jan Bakuwel wrote: > > > > Check your firewall rules. > > > > > > It can't be firewall rules. Try this to block outgoing ping: > > > > > > iptables -A OUTPUT -p icmp --icmp-type echo-request -j REJECT > > > > > > then try to ping anywhere. You will get a different error message, > > > namely "Destination Port Unreachable". > > > > > > [ Why people do not read all messages in the thread before answering > > > is a mystery to me ]. > > > No, that's not true, you definitely can get this very error due to > > something to do with the firewall, maybe it's not able to resolve the ping > > target rather than not able to reach the resulting host, I'm damned if I > > can remember the specifics but I've definitely seen this happen on an lfs > > box before and it was nothing to do with perms (as I said before, to your > > point about people not reading the whole thread...) > > I don't understand this argument. > > Why would ping bother to open a socket to a host it couldn't resolve? > > I know precious little about firewall rules, but AIUI the rules > determine whether to respond with things like Drop, Reject, Deny. > Now the OP didn't manage to open a socket; that's in the error message: > "ping: icmp open socket: Operation not permitted" > So how would ping find out how the firewall was going to react to its > ping message without opening a socket to send something? > > Cheers, > David. >
Did You change linux kernel, kernel modules or something lastly? Show output of lsmod.
