* Re: Ada In Crosstalk
2003-01-28 16:24 ` Wes Groleau
@ 2003-01-28 17:49 ` Warren W. Gay VE3WWG
2003-01-28 20:57 ` Wes Groleau
2003-01-29 8:26 ` Dr. Michael Paus
2003-01-28 18:42 ` tmoran
2003-01-29 13:09 ` John English
2 siblings, 2 replies; 27+ messages in thread
From: Warren W. Gay VE3WWG @ 2003-01-28 17:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
Wes Groleau wrote:
> >>I think it's like a miniature slashdot effect.
> >>C.L.A. mentions the site, and their server can't
> >>handle the sudden flood (of twenty-five people).
>
>> No, this is an issue that Dr. Paus has mentioned befor in this forum
>> -- the
>> .mil sites deny access to certain foreign IP addresses.
>
> I can believe that.
>
> On the other hand, almost every time
> I try to follow an STSC reference in CLA,
> (from my Indiana worksite, through
> a proxy in Boston, Dallas, or Los Angeles),
> it fails. It usually works the next day.
Many times, people have confused "access" with "name
server resolution errors". When you go to a web site,
two things must happen :
1. The "resolver" must lookup the site name (host name)
by contacting a chain of name servers.
2. Using the IP # from the resolver, you then establish
a session with the webserver.
These are two completely different processes, although they
look "combined" when you make use of a browser (you are
more aware of this when you do socket programming).
Try contacting directly by IP # 137.241.248.34 (this
was an "unauthoritative" answer according to my nslookup).
Some of you may just not be "resolving" the host site name.
Others may indeed have IP access related issues.
--
Warren W. Gay VE3WWG
http://home.cogeco.ca/~ve3wwg
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada In Crosstalk
2003-01-28 17:49 ` Warren W. Gay VE3WWG
@ 2003-01-28 20:57 ` Wes Groleau
2003-01-28 21:00 ` Vinzent Hoefler
2003-01-29 8:26 ` Dr. Michael Paus
1 sibling, 1 reply; 27+ messages in thread
From: Wes Groleau @ 2003-01-28 20:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
>> On the other hand, almost every time
>> I try to follow an STSC reference in CLA,
>> (from my Indiana worksite, through
>> a proxy in Boston, Dallas, or Los Angeles),
>> it fails. It usually works the next day.
>
> Many times, people have confused "access" with "name
> server resolution errors". When you go to a web site,
> two things must happen :
Let me clarify: I get a _timeout_ on Hill
if I go there in response to a mention
in CLA.
If I go there some other time, it usually works.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada In Crosstalk
2003-01-28 20:57 ` Wes Groleau
@ 2003-01-28 21:00 ` Vinzent Hoefler
0 siblings, 0 replies; 27+ messages in thread
From: Vinzent Hoefler @ 2003-01-28 21:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
Wes Groleau wrote:
> Let me clarify: I get a _timeout_ on Hill
> if I go there in response to a mention
> in CLA.
Just to clarify. Same here and it does not matter if I am in Switzerland
or - as currently - in the US.
Vinzent.
--
Opinions are like assholes -- everyone's got one, but nobody wants to
look at the other guy's.
-- Hal Hickman
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada In Crosstalk
2003-01-28 17:49 ` Warren W. Gay VE3WWG
2003-01-28 20:57 ` Wes Groleau
@ 2003-01-29 8:26 ` Dr. Michael Paus
2003-01-29 10:09 ` John R. Strohm
2003-01-29 15:20 ` Vinzent Hoefler
1 sibling, 2 replies; 27+ messages in thread
From: Dr. Michael Paus @ 2003-01-29 8:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
Warren W. Gay VE3WWG wrote:
> Wes Groleau wrote:
>
>> >>I think it's like a miniature slashdot effect.
>> >>C.L.A. mentions the site, and their server can't
>> >>handle the sudden flood (of twenty-five people).
>>
>>> No, this is an issue that Dr. Paus has mentioned befor in this forum
>>> -- the
>>> .mil sites deny access to certain foreign IP addresses.
>>
>>
>> I can believe that.
>>
>> On the other hand, almost every time
>> I try to follow an STSC reference in CLA,
>> (from my Indiana worksite, through
>> a proxy in Boston, Dallas, or Los Angeles),
>> it fails. It usually works the next day.
>
>
> Many times, people have confused "access" with "name
> server resolution errors". When you go to a web site,
> two things must happen :
>
> 1. The "resolver" must lookup the site name (host name)
> by contacting a chain of name servers.
> 2. Using the IP # from the resolver, you then establish
> a session with the webserver.
>
> These are two completely different processes, although they
> look "combined" when you make use of a browser (you are
> more aware of this when you do socket programming).
>
> Try contacting directly by IP # 137.241.248.34 (this
> was an "unauthoritative" answer according to my nslookup).
>
> Some of you may just not be "resolving" the host site name.
> Others may indeed have IP access related issues.
>
Well, I think I can tell difference between a time out and a
name resolution problem. Here is my answer from nslookup:
Nicht autorisierte Antwort:
Name: wbmas-stsc1.hill.af.mil
Address: 137.241.248.34
Aliases: www.stsc.hill.af.mil
So you see the name resolution is not the problem.
If I do a ping with the above IP # I never get to the
target. I get a time out somewhere in between and this is
always true for a couple of months now.
I have already posted the details in a previous post which
I do not want to repeat now.
Michael
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada In Crosstalk
2003-01-29 8:26 ` Dr. Michael Paus
@ 2003-01-29 10:09 ` John R. Strohm
2003-01-29 14:43 ` Dr. Michael Paus
2003-01-29 15:20 ` Vinzent Hoefler
1 sibling, 1 reply; 27+ messages in thread
From: John R. Strohm @ 2003-01-29 10:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
"Dr. Michael Paus" <paus@ib-paus.com> wrote in message
news:b18383$j0t$1@news.online.de...
> Well, I think I can tell difference between a time out and a
> name resolution problem. Here is my answer from nslookup:
>
> Nicht autorisierte Antwort:
> Name: wbmas-stsc1.hill.af.mil
> Address: 137.241.248.34
> Aliases: www.stsc.hill.af.mil
>
> So you see the name resolution is not the problem.
>
> If I do a ping with the above IP # I never get to the
> target. I get a time out somewhere in between and this is
> always true for a couple of months now.
>
> I have already posted the details in a previous post which
> I do not want to repeat now.
For those of us who came in late, what does traceroute show?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada In Crosstalk
2003-01-29 10:09 ` John R. Strohm
@ 2003-01-29 14:43 ` Dr. Michael Paus
2003-01-30 18:24 ` Michael Bode
0 siblings, 1 reply; 27+ messages in thread
From: Dr. Michael Paus @ 2003-01-29 14:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
John R. Strohm wrote:
> "Dr. Michael Paus" <paus@ib-paus.com> wrote in message
> news:b18383$j0t$1@news.online.de...
>
>>Well, I think I can tell difference between a time out and a
>>name resolution problem. Here is my answer from nslookup:
>>
>>Nicht autorisierte Antwort:
>>Name: wbmas-stsc1.hill.af.mil
>>Address: 137.241.248.34
>>Aliases: www.stsc.hill.af.mil
>>
>>So you see the name resolution is not the problem.
>>
>>If I do a ping with the above IP # I never get to the
>>target. I get a time out somewhere in between and this is
>>always true for a couple of months now.
>>
>>I have already posted the details in a previous post which
>>I do not want to repeat now.
>
>
> For those of us who came in late, what does traceroute show?
>tracert 137.241.248.34
Routenverfolgung zu wbmas-stsc1.hill.af.mil [137.241.248.34] über maximal 30 Ab
schnitte:
1 1 ms 1 ms 1 ms 192.168.1.32
2 58 ms 59 ms 60 ms 217.5.98.32
3 59 ms 59 ms 59 ms 217.237.152.246
4 147 ms 147 ms 146 ms NYC-gw14.USA.net.DTAG.DE [62.156.131.146]
5 145 ms 147 ms 145 ms jfk-brdr-02.inet.qwest.net [205.171.1.49]
6 146 ms 147 ms 148 ms jfk-core-03.inet.qwest.net [205.171.230.26]
7 155 ms 153 ms 151 ms dca-core-03.inet.qwest.net [205.171.8.218]
8 185 ms 187 ms 187 ms iah-core-01.inet.qwest.net [205.171.5.186]
9 187 ms 187 ms 187 ms iah-core-02.inet.qwest.net [205.171.31.2]
10 216 ms 218 ms 216 ms bur-core-01.inet.qwest.net [205.171.205.25]
11 215 ms 216 ms 215 ms lax-core-01.inet.qwest.net [205.171.8.41]
12 217 ms 216 ms 216 ms lax-edge-08.inet.qwest.net [205.171.19.142]
13 220 ms 220 ms 220 ms 65.113.16.22
14 221 ms 220 ms 223 ms 198.26.130.34
15 221 ms 219 ms 220 ms BU-WCX-SAND.NIPR.MIL [198.26.130.33]
16 227 ms 223 ms 223 ms 198.26.130.34
17 221 ms 221 ms 220 ms BU-WCX-SAND.NIPR.MIL [198.26.130.33]
18 222 ms 224 ms 221 ms 198.26.130.34
19 221 ms 223 ms 265 ms 198.26.118.34
20 272 ms 262 ms 265 ms 198.26.118.33
21 266 ms 263 ms 264 ms 198.26.118.34
22 266 ms 265 ms 265 ms 198.26.118.33
23 264 ms 302 ms 317 ms 198.26.122.9
24 245 ms 240 ms 245 ms 198.26.122.10
25 243 ms 249 ms 246 ms 198.26.122.9
26 241 ms 248 ms * 198.26.122.10
27 * * * Zeitüberschreitung der Anforderung.
28 ^C
This looks worse than usual. Some machines at the end of the chain
seem to be sending messages back and forth to each other.
Michael
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada In Crosstalk
2003-01-29 8:26 ` Dr. Michael Paus
2003-01-29 10:09 ` John R. Strohm
@ 2003-01-29 15:20 ` Vinzent Hoefler
2003-01-29 17:00 ` Warren W. Gay VE3WWG
1 sibling, 1 reply; 27+ messages in thread
From: Vinzent Hoefler @ 2003-01-29 15:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
Dr. Michael Paus wrote:
> Well, I think I can tell difference between a time out and a
> name resolution problem. Here is my answer from nslookup:
>
> Nicht autorisierte Antwort:
> Name: wbmas-stsc1.hill.af.mil
> Address: 137.241.248.34
> Aliases: www.stsc.hill.af.mil
>
> So you see the name resolution is not the problem.
>
> If I do a ping with the above IP # I never get to the
> target.
The server does not answer pings, look at this:
jlfencey@jellix:~> ping www.stsc.hill.af.mil
PING wbmas-stsc1.hill.af.mil (137.241.248.34) from XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX :
56(84) bytes of data.
--- wbmas-stsc1.hill.af.mil ping statistics ---
8 packets transmitted, 0 received, 100% loss, time 7011ms
But it answers http requests:
jlfencey@jellix:~> telnet www.stsc.hill.af.mil 80
Trying 137.241.248.34...
Connected to www.stsc.hill.af.mil.
Escape character is '^]'.
get index.html
HTTP/1.1 400 Bad Request
Server: Microsoft-IIS/5.0
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 14:31:15 GMT
Content-Type: text/html
Content-Length: 87
Vinzent.
--
God must love assholes -- She made so many of them.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada In Crosstalk
2003-01-29 15:20 ` Vinzent Hoefler
@ 2003-01-29 17:00 ` Warren W. Gay VE3WWG
2003-01-29 17:06 ` Vinzent Hoefler
0 siblings, 1 reply; 27+ messages in thread
From: Warren W. Gay VE3WWG @ 2003-01-29 17:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
Vinzent Hoefler wrote:
> Dr. Michael Paus wrote:
>>Well, I think I can tell difference between a time out and a
>>name resolution problem. Here is my answer from nslookup:
>>
>>Nicht autorisierte Antwort:
>>Name: wbmas-stsc1.hill.af.mil
>>Address: 137.241.248.34
>>Aliases: www.stsc.hill.af.mil
>>
>>So you see the name resolution is not the problem.
>>
>>If I do a ping with the above IP # I never get to the
>>target.
>
> The server does not answer pings, look at this:
>
> jlfencey@jellix:~> ping www.stsc.hill.af.mil
> PING wbmas-stsc1.hill.af.mil (137.241.248.34) from XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX :
> 56(84) bytes of data.
>
> --- wbmas-stsc1.hill.af.mil ping statistics ---
> 8 packets transmitted, 0 received, 100% loss, time 7011ms
>
> But it answers http requests:
...
> Vinzent.
It is also not unusual for firewalls to reject ping requests,
even if you have a webserver available there. Just about
any firewall/security book will cover the reasons for it.
For that reason, and others, you cannot rely on ping
as a reliable indication.
--
Warren W. Gay VE3WWG
http://home.cogeco.ca/~ve3wwg
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada In Crosstalk
2003-01-29 17:00 ` Warren W. Gay VE3WWG
@ 2003-01-29 17:06 ` Vinzent Hoefler
0 siblings, 0 replies; 27+ messages in thread
From: Vinzent Hoefler @ 2003-01-29 17:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
Warren W. Gay VE3WWG wrote:
>> jlfencey@jellix:~> ping www.stsc.hill.af.mil
>> PING wbmas-stsc1.hill.af.mil (137.241.248.34) from XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX :
>> 56(84) bytes of data.
>>
>> --- wbmas-stsc1.hill.af.mil ping statistics ---
>> 8 packets transmitted, 0 received, 100% loss, time 7011ms
>>
>> But it answers http requests:
> ...
>
> It is also not unusual for firewalls to reject ping requests,
Agree. Currently this is not the case here for me, but it is quite
usual.
> For that reason, and others, you cannot rely on ping
> as a reliable indication.
ACK.
Vinzent.
--
Cocaine is nature's way of telling you you have too much money.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada In Crosstalk
2003-01-28 16:24 ` Wes Groleau
2003-01-28 17:49 ` Warren W. Gay VE3WWG
@ 2003-01-28 18:42 ` tmoran
2003-01-29 13:09 ` John English
2 siblings, 0 replies; 27+ messages in thread
From: tmoran @ 2003-01-28 18:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
> >>C.L.A. mentions the site, and their server can't
> >>handle the sudden flood (of twenty-five people).
> > No, this is an issue that Dr. Paus has mentioned befor in this forum -- the
> > .mil sites deny access to certain foreign IP addresses.
> it fails. It usually works the next day.
I couldn't get in yesterday morning but could in the afternoon. I'm
happy to see it's not the case that the Administration has declared
California a foreign country. ;)
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada In Crosstalk
2003-01-28 16:24 ` Wes Groleau
2003-01-28 17:49 ` Warren W. Gay VE3WWG
2003-01-28 18:42 ` tmoran
@ 2003-01-29 13:09 ` John English
2003-01-29 14:51 ` Wes Groleau
2 siblings, 1 reply; 27+ messages in thread
From: John English @ 2003-01-29 13:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
Wes Groleau wrote:
>
> >>I think it's like a miniature slashdot effect.
> >>C.L.A. mentions the site, and their server can't
> >>handle the sudden flood (of twenty-five people).
>
> > No, this is an issue that Dr. Paus has mentioned befor in this forum -- the
> > .mil sites deny access to certain foreign IP addresses.
>
> I can believe that.
>
> On the other hand, almost every time
> I try to follow an STSC reference in CLA,
> (from my Indiana worksite, through
> a proxy in Boston, Dallas, or Los Angeles),
> it fails. It usually works the next day.
Maybe the extra day is how long it takes the spooks to do a security
check? :-)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
John English | mailto:je@brighton.ac.uk
Senior Lecturer | http://www.it.bton.ac.uk/staff/je
Dept. of Computing | ** NON-PROFIT CD FOR CS STUDENTS **
University of Brighton | -- see http://burks.bton.ac.uk
-----------------------------------------------------------------
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada In Crosstalk
2003-01-29 13:09 ` John English
@ 2003-01-29 14:51 ` Wes Groleau
0 siblings, 0 replies; 27+ messages in thread
From: Wes Groleau @ 2003-01-29 14:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
> Maybe the extra day is how long it takes the spooks to do a security
> check? :-)
I know you're joking, but I'll play serious
anyway.
When I decide I want to look something up
at STSC, I generally get in with no problem.
The exception is when the decision is prompted
by a note in C.L.A. Hence my hypothesis that
they're overloaded by other C.L.A. readers.
Dr. Paus has a different problem--he says
he gets a timeout _always_. So in his case,
I suspect a deliberate block somewhere along
the route.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread