From owner-freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org Tue Feb 16 09:36:57 2016 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-bugs@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F552AA92BB for ; Tue, 16 Feb 2016 09:36:57 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org (kenobi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::16:76]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 43CDC1BFE for ; Tue, 16 Feb 2016 09:36:57 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from bugs.freebsd.org ([127.0.1.118]) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id u1G9avb4029491 for ; Tue, 16 Feb 2016 09:36:57 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 207208] ping has a problem with fragmented replies Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2016 09:36:57 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: AssignedTo X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: Base System X-Bugzilla-Component: bin X-Bugzilla-Version: 10.2-RELEASE X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: Affects Only Me X-Bugzilla-Who: jasper@siepkes.nl X-Bugzilla-Status: New X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: --- X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 X-BeenThere: freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: Bug reports List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2016 09:36:57 -0000 https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D207208 --- Comment #3 from Jasper Siepkes --- Thanks for the prompt response Maxim. I did some checks: # sysctl net.inet.ip.maxfragsperpacket net.inet.ip.maxfragpackets net.inet.ip.maxfragsperpacket: 16 net.inet.ip.maxfragpackets: 8192 Those are the defaults I believe. Also double checked any modifications to = ICMP and IP related stuff in loader.conf or sysctl.conf.=20 ----8<----------------------- # netstat -sp ip ip: 5136257 total packets received 0 bad header checksums 0 with size smaller than minimum 0 with data size < data length 0 with ip length > max ip packet size 0 with header length < data size 0 with data length < header length 0 with bad options 0 with incorrect version number 0 fragments received 0 fragments dropped (dup or out of space) 0 fragments dropped after timeout 0 packets reassembled ok 254049 packets for this host 12 packets for unknown/unsupported protocol 0 packets forwarded (0 packets fast forwarded) 0 packets not forwardable 0 packets received for unknown multicast group 0 redirects sent 702407 packets sent from this host 0 packets sent with fabricated ip header 0 output packets dropped due to no bufs, etc. 0 output packets discarded due to no route 31 output datagrams fragmented 62 fragments created 22 datagrams that can't be fragmented 0 tunneling packets that can't find gif 0 datagrams with bad address in header # netstat -sp icmp icmp: 0 calls to icmp_error 0 errors not generated in response to an icmp message 0 messages with bad code fields 0 messages less than the minimum length 0 messages with bad checksum 0 messages with bad length 0 multicast echo requests ignored 0 multicast timestamp requests ignored Input histogram: echo reply: 1 destination unreachable: 7282 time exceeded: 1 0 message responses generated 0 invalid return addresses 0 no return routes ICMP address mask responses are disabled ----8<----------------------- I ran the tests again so the single 'echo reply' received is the normal size and the "time exceeded" is the one with the larger payload. The host I used is behind NAT (PAT) so that could indeed be a problem. Howe= ver I just now also did the test on another host which isn't behind NAT (pinged another host in its network segment) and he also had the problem. I will install a vanilla VM today and do some tests to see if this really i= s an issue or I messed up somewhere else in the config. --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.=