Discussion:
mpls broken again
(too old to reply)
Martin Husemann
2014-11-28 14:04:08 UTC
Permalink
Some recent changes (no idea which) broke the MPLS regression tests:

PING 10.0.4.1 (10.0.4.1): 64 data bytes
72 bytes from 10.0.4.1: icmp_seq=2 ttl=255 time=12.450469 ms

----10.0.4.1 PING Statistics----
3 packets transmitted, 1 packets received, 66.7% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 12.450469/12.450469/12.450469/0.000000 ms

Haven't we seen this before? Crash when trying to answer the first packet
or something?

Martin

--
Posted automagically by a mail2news gateway at muc.de e.V.
Please direct questions, flames, donations, etc. to news-***@muc.de
Martin Husemann
2014-11-29 15:24:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Martin Husemann
PING 10.0.4.1 (10.0.4.1): 64 data bytes
72 bytes from 10.0.4.1: icmp_seq=2 ttl=255 time=12.450469 ms
----10.0.4.1 PING Statistics----
3 packets transmitted, 1 packets received, 66.7% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 12.450469/12.450469/12.450469/0.000000 ms
Very strange, it seems to be the ping changes:

http://cvsweb.netbsd.org/bsdweb.cgi/src/sbin/ping/ping.c?only_with_tag=MAIN#rev1.108

With that backed out, the tests work again.

Martin

--
Posted automagically by a mail2news gateway at muc.de e.V.
Please direct questions, flames, donations, etc. to news-***@muc.de
Martin Husemann
2014-11-30 10:40:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Martin Husemann
Post by Martin Husemann
PING 10.0.4.1 (10.0.4.1): 64 data bytes
72 bytes from 10.0.4.1: icmp_seq=2 ttl=255 time=12.450469 ms
----10.0.4.1 PING Statistics----
3 packets transmitted, 1 packets received, 66.7% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 12.450469/12.450469/12.450469/0.000000 ms
http://cvsweb.netbsd.org/bsdweb.cgi/src/sbin/ping/ping.c?only_with_tag=MAIN#rev1.108
Actually not that strange, if looking at it after coffee:

The old ping (when used without -s option) says something like:

64 bytes from 10.0.4.1: icmp_seq=2 ttl=255 time=4.190592 ms

while the new one says:

72 bytes from 10.0.4.1: icmp_seq=2 ttl=255 time=4.190592 ms

and the "64" vs "72" mismatch does not match the expression tested for in
the test case.


Martin

--
Posted automagically by a mail2news gateway at muc.de e.V.
Please direct questions, flames, donations, etc. to news-***@muc.de
Loading...