[SOLVED] Why the Heck Can't I ping Anything?

tronayne · 07-22-2015, 07:19 AM

Slackware 64-bit 14.1 stable, fully patched.

Can't ping anything; e.g.,

Code:

ping -c 5 linuxquestions.org 
PING linuxquestions.org (75.126.162.205) 56(84) bytes of data.

--- linuxquestions.org ping statistics ---
5 packets transmitted, 0 received, 100% packet loss, time 3999ms

Something I missed with some update or other?

Thanks.

willysr · 07-22-2015, 07:28 AM

perhaps it was dropped?

allend · 07-22-2015, 07:33 AM

Works for me.

Code:

bash-4.3$ ping -c 2 linuxquestions.org
PING linuxquestions.org (75.126.162.205) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from www.linuxquestions.org (75.126.162.205): icmp_seq=1 ttl=46 time=311 ms
64 bytes from www.linuxquestions.org (75.126.162.205): icmp_seq=2 ttl=46 time=310 ms

--- linuxquestions.org ping statistics ---
2 packets transmitted, 2 received, 0% packet loss, time 1000ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 310.921/311.410/311.900/0.742 ms

Perhaps your ISP is blocking ICMP?

Try working out through your network.
Can you ping your interface? e.g. 'ping -c2 10.1.1.2'
Can you you ping your router? e.g. 'ping -c2 10.1.1.1'?

tronayne · 07-22-2015, 08:01 AM

Hmm.

OK, yes I can ping the gateway (the router):

Code:

ping -c 2 192.168.1.1
PING 192.168.1.1 (192.168.1.1) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from 192.168.1.1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=150 time=0.606 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.1: icmp_seq=2 ttl=150 time=0.636 ms

and the printer on the LAN:

Code:

ping -c 2 OfficeJet
PING OfficeJet (192.168.1.15) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from OfficeJet (192.168.1.15): icmp_seq=1 ttl=255 time=0.426 ms
64 bytes from OfficeJet (192.168.1.15): icmp_seq=2 ttl=255 time=0.353 ms

and the satellite interface:

Code:

ping -c 2 192.168.0.1
PING 192.168.0.1 (192.168.0.1) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=63 time=1.33 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=2 ttl=63 time=0.883 ms

and I can ping my assigned IP address (from What's My User Agent):

Code:

ping -c 2 69.35.200.182
PING 69.35.200.182 (69.35.200.182) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from 69.35.200.182: icmp_seq=1 ttl=61 time=1218 ms
64 bytes from 69.35.200.182: icmp_seq=2 ttl=61 time=1517 ms

but, past the satellite interface?

Code:

ping -c 2 news.google.com
PING news.l.google.com (74.125.224.41) 56(84) bytes of data.

--- news.l.google.com ping statistics ---
2 packets transmitted, 0 received, 100% packet loss, time 999ms

Time to talk to HughesNet methinks.

Phooey.

frankbell · 07-22-2015, 08:03 PM

Try a traceroute. That should help you figure out where the ping is failing.

Code:

$ traceroute linuxquestions.org
traceroute to linuxquestions.org (75.126.162.205), 30 hops max, 60 byte packets
 1  192.168.2.1 (192.168.2.1)  0.697 ms  0.693 ms  3.048 ms
 2  10.5.48.1 (10.5.48.1)  10.435 ms  11.369 ms  14.589 ms
 3  68.10.8.209 (68.10.8.209)  15.960 ms  16.150 ms  16.578 ms
 4  172.22.51.66 (172.22.51.66)  15.928 ms  15.903 ms  15.916 ms
 5  ashbbprj01-ae2.rd.as.cox.net (68.1.0.242)  20.170 ms  21.282 ms *
 6  xe-102.bbr02.eq01.wdc02.networklayer.com (50.97.16.21)  21.279 ms  13.628 ms  17.949 ms
 7  ae7.bbr01.eq01.wdc02.networklayer.com (173.192.18.194)  16.884 ms  17.964 ms  20.056 ms
 8  ae0.bbr01.tl01.atl01.networklayer.com (173.192.18.153)  33.321 ms  33.323 ms  32.094 ms
 9  ae13.bbr02.eq01.dal03.networklayer.com (173.192.18.134)  50.514 ms  50.515 ms  49.267 ms
10  ae1.dar01.sr01.dal01.networklayer.com (173.192.18.255)  50.510 ms  50.746 ms  50.727 ms
11  po1.fcr02.sr04.dal01.networklayer.com (66.228.118.178)  52.407 ms  52.388 ms  51.837 ms
12  www.linuxquestions.org (75.126.162.205)  43.676 ms  50.258 ms  45.288 ms

jefro · 07-22-2015, 09:23 PM

Ping is a poor test anymore. It is OK for simple things but really is being blocked more and more.

Testing it over the internet really has little use I'd think.

What are you trying to do with pinging LQ?

rico974 · 07-23-2015, 02:42 AM

Hi, try mtr (mytraceroute) it helped me a couple of times locating packet losses.

tronayne · 07-23-2015, 07:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jefro

Ping is a poor test anymore. It is OK for simple things but really is being blocked more and more.

Testing it over the internet really has little use I'd think.

What are you trying to do with pinging LQ?

traceroute works just fine.

My only choice for Internet service is satellite and I picked HughesNet when there wasn't any other alternative some years ago. There really isn't any alternative (at reasonable cost) that makes switching to another service (like DishNet) worth the expense. HughesNet is fast enough for my needs (actual download speeds are around 2.4 MB.

The downside of satellite, any satellite, service is "weather events." Where I live it rains and it snows and the transceiver can't punch though at times of heavy weather. When that happens, the satellite modem loses it's mind and I need to reset my router (like: unplug it, wait, plug it back in) when the situation clears and the modem reacquires a signal. There's also the joy of brushing, oh, ten inches of snow off the dish occasionally in January or February.

That sort of thing can and does happen three or four times per week if there's overnight weather or sun spots or alien spacecraft or a bear sniffing around or a zombie jamboree or some other damn thing. I'm a tiny ground station with a not-too-powerful transceiver shooting at a tiny satellite umpty thousand miles away.

In the morning, if Firefox can't connect to Dilbert.com (have to have my morning fix of Corporate America Insanity), that's a sure sign that something happened overnight and ping is just a quick-and-dirty way to find that out; doesn't take a lot of bandwidth, doesn't really bother anybody, tells you quickly if you've got a crappy connection somewhere or other (with packet loses).

And that, in a long, round about way, is why I've been using ping for decades to find out quickly if a server has gone to the great byte bucket in the sky on the LAN or a network connection needs attention or if it rained heavily last night. I just don't like unplugging my router and plugging it back in if I don't have to.

It does look, though, like HughesNet is blocking ICMP ECHO_REQUEST (I haven't contacted them yet, but it sure looks that way). Naughty boys, them.

Thanks for the input.

smallpond · 07-23-2015, 07:46 AM

Do you have a firewall in your router? Check if it is blocking icmp.

Didier Spaier · 07-23-2015, 08:35 AM

Hi Thomas,

Quote:

Originally Posted by tronayne

My only choice for Internet service is satellite

Just curious: can't you get DSL at affordable prices where you live? I ask because I think that one just need to be less than 4 km or 5 km from the nearest DSLAM to get an acceptable bandwidth on a small diameter telephone line like mine (0.4 mm). I am 3400m from the DSLAM, with an attenuation of 51 dB and can watch TV through the DSL modem with no issue.

PS This is near Saint-Fargeau in a house in the woods. In Paris I have a connection through optical fiber.

bassmadrigal · 07-23-2015, 09:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Didier Spaier

Just curious: can't you get DSL at affordable prices where you live?

Not OP, but there are still many places in the US that are too far from a DSLAM (although, they tend to be sparsely populated). My grandpa's cabin is one of them (this isn't a cabin out in the middle of nowhere, but more of a mountainous private neighborhood that people tend to build log cabins instead of regular homes). I know for all the homes up there, satellite is the only option for internet access. Neither cable nor DSL is available.

Gerard Lally · 07-23-2015, 09:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Didier Spaier

Hi Thomas,
Just curious: can't you get DSL at affordable prices where you live? I ask because I think that one just need to be less than 4 km or 5 km from the nearest DSLAM to get an acceptable bandwidth on a small diameter telephone line like mine (0.4 mm). I am 3400m from the DSLAM, with an attenuation of 51 dB and can watch TV through the DSL modem with no issue.

PS This is near Saint-Fargeau in a house in the woods. In Paris I have a connection through optical fiber.

Speaking for myself, I can't get DSL here, 5km from the exchange. I used to have satellite as well, but it was very expensive (over 100 euro per month for 4GB data allowance and 512k down, 128k up). Then 3G came along. It's reasonable, but nothing special: 40 euro per month for 60GB data, with speeds varying from 512k during the day to 12x that speed late at night. If you hear fairy tales about Ireland being technologically advanced just ignore them; with the exception of a few pockets around Dublin Ireland is technologically backward, and getting worse.

Gerard Lally · 07-23-2015, 10:08 AM

@tronayne: when I had satellite and ping times were poor I set up an OpenBSD pf firewall with packet prioritization/bandwidth-shaping. It helped immensely, by prioritizing ack packets. Think of it like a supermarket where everyone with small baskets is put in a designated queue to get them off the floor quickly and keep things moving.

I found the Linux tc equivalent too complex to set up, although it seems a lot more powerful.

If you can get your hands on an old Pentium III why not give it a go? Just stick OpenBSD on it, configure the pf firewall with bandwidth-shaping and stick it between your home network and your satellite modem.

kfritz · 07-23-2015, 10:55 AM

Try nping. It uses TCP to port 80 by default, and Hughes won't block that.

tronayne · 07-23-2015, 11:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Didier Spaier

Hi Thomas,
Just curious: can't you get DSL at affordable prices where you live? I ask because I think that one just need to be less than 4 km or 5 km from the nearest DSLAM to get an acceptable bandwidth on a small diameter telephone line like mine (0.4 mm). I am 3400m from the DSLAM, with an attenuation of 51 dB and can watch TV through the DSL modem with no issue.

Hi Your Own Self Didier,

Nope, not yet (and maybe not ever) -- too far away and old, clunky, General Telephone (now Frontier created by Verizon when they dump their land lines) equipment. Nearest DSLAM is over 10 miles.

Other options are Verizon wireless (far too expensive and unreliable where I live) and dial-up. And I won't do business with Verizon under any circumstances in any event so there you have it.

There is fiber optic (the backbone, not for connections by the public) about three miles away and a Frontier twisted pair guy I know says they're going to be doing twisted pair DSL "real soon now" for a reasonable price (like about $15). If they ever do it, I'll sign up for it (not a dang thing wrong with twisted pain that I know of).

Everybody and their brother seems bent on Wi-Fi connected to the fiber and want to offer Internet, TV, phone, and a power butt scratcher. Only trouble is that it's a rip-off price-wise.

Just part of the joys of living in the woods far from town, I guess.

Take care.