Bug 21095

Summary: traceroute not working on rh7
Product: [Retired] Red Hat Linux Reporter: Need Real Name <j.e.s.de.jong>
Component: tracerouteAssignee: Crutcher Dunnavant <crutcher>
Status: CLOSED NOTABUG QA Contact: Aaron Brown <abrown>
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: medium    
Version: 7.0CC: hugh, nphilipp, pekkas, twaugh
Target Milestone: ---   
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: i386   
OS: Linux   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2000-11-20 18:38:49 UTC Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:

Description Need Real Name 2000-11-19 20:48:28 UTC 
when runnung a tracroute I get :
traceroute to www.redhat.com (216.148.218.195), 30 hops max, 38 byte
packets
 1  * * *
 2  * * *
 3  * * *
 4  * * *
 5  * * *
 6  * * *
 7  * * *
 8  * * *
 9  * * *
10  * * *
11  * * *
12  * * *
13  * * *
14  * * *
15  * * *
16  * * *
17  * * *
18  * * *
19  * * *
20  * * *
21  * * *
22  * * *
23  * * *
24  * * *
25  * * *
26  * * *
27  * * *
28  * * *
29  * * *
30  * * *

what is expect is :
[jorg] /home/jorg > /mnt/usr/sbin/traceroute www.redhat.com
traceroute to www.redhat.com (216.148.218.195), 30 hops max, 40 byte
packets
 1  tnt28.rtm1.nl.uu.net (213.116.1.28)  32.254 ms  33.621 ms  34.708 ms
 2  GE4-0.dr2.rtm1.nl.uu.net (212.153.209.2)  33.468 ms  34.811 ms  34.210
ms
 3  452.atm6-0.cr2.rtm1.nl.uu.net (212.136.177.109)  34.841 ms  32.311 ms 
34.719 ms
 4  152.atm1-0-0.xr1.ams2.alter.net (212.136.184.150)  35.575 ms  32.433
ms  41.205 ms
 5  SO-0-0-0.TR2.AMS2.Alter.Net (146.188.8.82)  35.466 ms  33.556 ms 
34.836 ms
 6  SO-6-0-0.TR2.LND2.Alter.Net (146.188.8.157)  40.339 ms  41.433 ms 
38.458 ms
 7  SO-6-0-0.IR2.NYC12.Alter.Net (146.188.15.54)  113.844 ms  110.570 ms 
110.946 ms
 8  so-1-0-0.IR2.NYC9.ALTER.NET (152.63.23.69)  111.733 ms  109.040 ms 
112.831 ms
 9  119.at-5-0-0.TR2.NYC9.ALTER.NET (152.63.1.202)  119.221 ms  110.705 ms 
109.551 ms
10  186.ATM6-0.XR2.NYC1.ALTER.NET (152.63.21.73)  112.146 ms  111.233 ms 
111.720 ms
11  194.ATM9-0-0.BR1.NYC1.ALTER.NET (146.188.177.157)  111.441 ms  109.672
ms  115.707 ms
12  atm9-0.nyc-bb8.cerf.net (134.24.32.49)  107.719 ms  113.810 ms  110.091
ms
ect ect 

the last traceroute is generated by the traceroute executable from a 
redhat 6.0. I am curently running rh7 upgraded from rh6.0 and
have installed all updated for rh7 (except emacs).
Comment 1 Tim Waugh 2000-11-20 13:21:50 UTC 
I have seen this on a multi-homed system.  Specifying -i eth1 didn't help, but
specifying -s <IP address of eth1> did.  Does that help in your case? (Use
ifconfig to find out the IP address of the interface you want to use, if it's
using DHCP.)
Comment 2 Need Real Name 2000-11-20 18:38:42 UTC 
Yes when is specify the ipaddress of the outgoing interface I indeed
get a correct traceroute. 
It is still strange that the orignal rh6.0 executable does not need
this extra hint and the new rh7 does!
My setups is a eth0 with 192.168.1.1 and a dailout ippp0 isdn ppp connection.
Comment 3 Need Real Name 2000-11-20 18:38:46 UTC 
Yes when is specify the ipaddress of the outgoing interface I indeed
get a correct traceroute. 
It is still strange that the orignal rh6.0 executable does not need
this extra hint and the new rh7 does!
My setups is a eth0 with 192.168.1.1 and a dailout ippp0 isdn ppp connection.
Comment 4 Jeff Johnson 2000-12-28 01:49:31 UTC 
This problem appears to be resolved.
Comment 5 Nils Philippsen 2001-01-24 10:52:27 UTC 
I wouldn't say that the problem is resolved. When traceroute fails to select
the correct outgoing interface automatically (which it did in the past), this
qualifies as a bug. That one couldn't work around it by specifying the outgoing
interface (instead you have to determine the IP address of your interface with
ifconfig because (thank you, IPv4!) your provider assigns a dynamic address to
you) is just one bug more.

I will try out the version from RawHide when I'm at home and have the time to
do it, but if that fails could we please reopen this bug?
Comment 6 D. Hugh Redelmeier 2002-08-09 21:08:52 UTC 
This bug is surely the same as 17915.