On Mon, 2014-11-03 at 03:30 -0800, Wolfgang S. Rupprecht wrote:
> That switch was only a year and change old. Just enough to take it
> out of the 1 year warranty.
Check your local trading standards. Here, one year warranties are not
exactly 365 days, they have to be extended by a reasonable amou
Ed Greshko writes:
> As I mentioned in a previous message, I would have suggested rebooting
> the GWwhich may also solve it as it may not be an actual port
> problem just that it got into a "condition". :-)
It would be nice if it were that simple. That switch was only a year
and change old
On 11/03/14 10:18, Wolfgang S. Rupprecht wrote:
> The problem turned out to be my switch dying in a funny way. When I
> moved the computer's ethernet from the switch (Netgear GS108E-100NAS) to
> a spare port on the gateway, large pings started working.
>
> Thanks for everyone helping to reason t
The problem turned out to be my switch dying in a funny way. When I
moved the computer's ethernet from the switch (Netgear GS108E-100NAS) to
a spare port on the gateway, large pings started working.
Thanks for everyone helping to reason through this. The observation
that it wasn't a general f
On 11/03/14 09:50, Ed Greshko wrote:
> What I would do is use "wireshark" with a capture filter of "icmp" and see
> what is going out on the wire. What I would do is "ping -c 1 -s 2000 gw" and
> then check to see that 2 packets are being sent out with the first one being
> marked as a fragment.
On 11/03/14 09:20, Wolfgang S. Rupprecht wrote:
> Ed Greshko writes:
>> [egreshko@meimei ~]$ ping -s 1200 wifi (my gw)
>> PING wifi.greshko.com (192.168.1.1) 1200(1228) bytes of data.
>> 1208 bytes from wifi.greshko.com (192.168.1.1): icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=0.487
>> ms
>> 1208 bytes from wifi.g
Ed Greshko writes:
> [egreshko@meimei ~]$ ping -s 1200 wifi (my gw)
> PING wifi.greshko.com (192.168.1.1) 1200(1228) bytes of data.
> 1208 bytes from wifi.greshko.com (192.168.1.1): icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=0.487
> ms
> 1208 bytes from wifi.greshko.com (192.168.1.1): icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=0.501
On Mon, 03 Nov 2014 08:25:32 +0800
Ed Greshko wrote:
> So, no trouble here.
I've had some trouble, but only in very odd circumstances:
I have a f20 machine hosting a slew of virtual machines on
a bridge network with the virtual machines on their own separate
subnet on one bridge and the f20 mach
On 11/03/14 08:16, Wolfgang S. Rupprecht wrote:
> It looks like something broke recently that severely limits the MTU in
> Fedora 20 when running under NM. Are other people seeing this too?
> Here I'm pinging my upstream lan-to-wan gateway. A 1200 byte ping fails
> while a 500 byte one succeeds.
It looks like something broke recently that severely limits the MTU in
Fedora 20 when running under NM. Are other people seeing this too?
Here I'm pinging my upstream lan-to-wan gateway. A 1200 byte ping fails
while a 500 byte one succeeds. I see the same thing when pinging
between two identica
10 matches
Mail list logo
