Autor: Yoss (bartek_at_gateway1.milc.com.pl)
Data: Sun 04 Nov 2001 - 19:26:27 MET
Marcin, napisało Ci sie:
> A ja mam cos takiego :-)
> spock_at_home 1:43pm ~> ping www.teleglobe.com
> PING www.teleglobe.com (199.202.44.109): 56 data bytes
> 64 bytes from 199.202.44.109: icmp_seq=1 ttl=114 time=150.221 ms
> 64 bytes from 199.202.44.109: icmp_seq=2 ttl=114 time=150.182 ms
> 64 bytes from 199.202.44.109: icmp_seq=3 ttl=114 time=150.214 ms
> 64 bytes from 199.202.44.109: icmp_seq=3 ttl=114 time=150.976 ms (DUP!)
> 64 bytes from 199.202.44.109: icmp_seq=4 ttl=114 time=160.235 ms
> 64 bytes from 199.202.44.109: icmp_seq=5 ttl=114 time=150.200 ms
> 64 bytes from 199.202.44.109: icmp_seq=6 ttl=114 time=150.208 ms
> 64 bytes from 199.202.44.109: icmp_seq=6 ttl=114 time=160.203 ms (DUP!)
> 64 bytes from 199.202.44.109: icmp_seq=7 ttl=114 time=150.265 ms
> 64 bytes from 199.202.44.109: icmp_seq=7 ttl=114 time=160.207 ms (DUP!)
> 64 bytes from 199.202.44.109: icmp_seq=8 ttl=114 time=150.239 ms
> 64 bytes from 199.202.44.109: icmp_seq=8 ttl=114 time=160.246 ms (DUP!)
> 64 bytes from 199.202.44.109: icmp_seq=9 ttl=114 time=150.223 ms
> 64 bytes from 199.202.44.109: icmp_seq=9 ttl=114 time=160.216 ms (DUP!)
2 pytanka:
Jak pingowalem od siebie, to kazdy pakiet byl zduplikowany, dlaczego?
Czy braki duplikatow w powyzszym pingu nalezy interpretowac tak,
ze to pakiety utracone?
-- Bartłomiej Butyn aka Yoss Nie ma tego złego co by na gorsze nie wyszło.
To archiwum zostało wygenerowane przez hypermail 2.1.7 : Wed 19 May 2004 - 17:07:51 MET DST