Search Results

Search found 529 results on 22 pages for 'wireshark dissector'.

Page 22/22 | < Previous Page | 18 19 20 21 22 

• WCF timeout exception detailed investigation

  - by Jason Kealey

  We have an application that has a WCF service (*.svc) running on IIS7 and various clients querying the service. The server is running Win 2008 Server. The clients are running either Windows 2008 Server or Windows 2003 server. I am getting the following exception, which I have seen can in fact be related to a large number of potential WCF issues. System.TimeoutException: The request channel timed out while waiting for a reply after 00:00:59.9320000. Increase the timeout value passed to the call to Request or increase the SendTimeout value on the Binding. The time allotted to this operation may have been a portion of a longer timeout. ---> System.TimeoutException: The HTTP request to 'http://www.domain.com/WebServices/myservice.svc/gzip' has exceeded the allotted timeout of 00:01:00. The time allotted to this operation may have been a portion of a longer timeout. I have increased the timeout to 30min and the error still occurred. This tells me that something else is at play, because the quantity of data could never take 30min to upload or download. The error comes and goes. At the moment, it is more frequent. It does not seem to matter if I have 3 clients running simultaneously or 100, it still occurs once in a while. Most of the time, there are no timeouts but I still get a few per hour. The error comes from any of the methods that are invoked. One of these methods does not have parameters and returns a bit of data. Another takes in lots of data as a parameter but executes asynchronously. The errors always originate from the client and never reference any code on the server in the stack trace. It always ends with: at System.Net.HttpWebRequest.GetResponse() at System.ServiceModel.Channels.HttpChannelFactory.HttpRequestChannel.HttpChannelRequest.WaitForReply(TimeSpan timeout) On the server: I've tried (and currently have) the following binding settings: maxBufferSize="2147483647" maxReceivedMessageSize="2147483647" maxBufferPoolSize="2147483647" It does not seem to have an impact. I've tried (and currently have) the following throttling settings: <serviceThrottling maxConcurrentCalls="1500" maxConcurrentInstances="1500" maxConcurrentSessions="1500"/> It does not seem to have an impact. I currently have the following settings for the WCF service. [ServiceBehavior(InstanceContextMode = InstanceContextMode.Single, ConcurrencyMode = ConcurrencyMode.Single)] I ran with ConcurrencyMode.Multiple for a while, and the error still occurred. I've tried restarting IIS, restarting my underlying SQL Server, restarting the machine. All of these don't seem to have an impact. I've tried disabling the Windows firewall. It does not seem to have an impact. On the client, I have these settings: maxReceivedMessageSize="2147483647" <system.net> <connectionManagement> <add address="*" maxconnection="16"/> </connectionManagement> </system.net> My client closes its connections: var client = new MyClient(); try { return client.GetConfigurationOptions(); } finally { client.Close(); } I have changed the registry settings to allow more outgoing connections: MaxConnectionsPerServer=24, MaxConnectionsPer1_0Server=32. I have now just recently tried SvcTraceViewer.exe. I managed to catch one exception on the client end. I see that its duration is 1 minute. Looking at the server side trace, I can see that the server is not aware of this exception. The maximum duration I can see is 10 seconds. I have looked at active database connections using exec sp_who on the server. I only have a few (2-3). I have looked at TCP connections from one client using TCPview. It usually is around 2-3 and I have seen up to 5 or 6. Simply put, I am stumped. I have tried everything I could find, and must be missing something very simple that a WCF expert would be able to see. It is my gut feeling that something is blocking my clients at the low-level (TCP), before the server actually receives the message and/or that something is queuing the messages at the server level and never letting them process. If you have any performance counters I should look at, please let me know. (please indicate what values are bad, as some of these counters are hard to decypher). Also, how could I log the WCF message size? Finally, are there any tools our there that would allow me to test how many connections I can establish between my client and server (independently from my application) Thanks for your time! Extra information added June 20th: My WCF application does something similar to the following. while (true) { Step1GetConfigurationSettingsFromServerViaWCF(); // can change between calls Step2GetWorkUnitFromServerViaWCF(); DoWorkLocally(); // takes 5-15minutes. Step3SendBackResultsToServerViaWCF(); } Using WireShark, I did see that when the error occurs, I have a five TCP retransmissions followed by a TCP reset later on. My guess is the RST is coming from WCF killing the connection. The exception report I get is from Step3 timing out. I discovered this by looking at the tcp stream "tcp.stream eq 192". I then expanded my filter to "tcp.stream eq 192 and http and http.request.method eq POST" and saw 6 POSTs during this stream. This seemed odd, so I checked with another stream such as tcp.stream eq 100. I had three POSTs, which seems a bit more normal because I am doing three calls. However, I do close my connection after every WCF call, so I would have expected one call per stream (but I don't know much about TCP). Investigating a bit more, I dumped the http packet load to disk to look at what these six calls where. 1) Step3 2) Step1 3) Step2 4) Step3 - corrupted 5) Step1 6) Step2 My guess is two concurrent clients are using the same connection, that is why I saw duplicates. However, I still have a few more issues that I can't comprehend: a) Why is the packet corrupted? Random network fluke - maybe? The load is gzipped using this sample code: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms751458.aspx - Could the code be buggy once in a while when used concurrently? I should test without the gzip library. b) Why would I see step 1 & step 2 running AFTER the corrupted operation timed out? It seems to me as if these operations should not have occurred. Maybe I am not looking at the right stream because my understanding of TCP is flawed. I have other streams that occur at the same time. I should investigate other streams - a quick glance at streams 190-194 show that the Step3 POST have proper payload data (not corrupted). Pushing me to look at the gzip library again.

  Read the article

• SINGLE SIGN ON SECURITY THREAT! FACEBOOK access_token broadcast in the open/clear

  - by MOKANA

  Subsequent to my posting there was a remark made that this was not really a question but I thought I did indeed postulate one. So that there is no ambiquity here is the question with a lead in: Since there is no data sent from Facebook during the Canvas Load process that is not at some point divulged, including the access_token, session and other data that could uniquely identify a user, does any one see any other way other than adding one more layer, i.e., a password, sent over the wire via HTTPS along with the access_toekn, that will insure unique untampered with security by the user? Using Wireshark I captured the local broadcast while loading my Canvas Application page. I was hugely surprised to see the access_token broadcast in the open, viewable for any one to see. This access_token is appended to any https call to the Facebook OpenGraph API. Using facebook as a single click log on has now raised huge concerns for me. It is stored in a session object in memory and the cookie is cleared upon app termination and after reviewing the FB.Init calls I saw a lot of HTTPS calls so I assumed the access_token was always encrypted. But last night I saw in the status bar a call from what was simply an http call that included the App ID so I felt I should sniff the Application Canvas load sequence. Today I did sniff the broadcast and in the attached image you can see that there are http calls with the access_token being broadcast in the open and clear for anyone to gain access to. Am I missing something, is what I am seeing and my interpretation really correct. If any one can sniff and get the access_token they can theorically make calls to the Graph API via https, even though the call back would still need to be the site established in Facebook's application set up. But what is truly a security threat is anyone using the access_token for access to their own site. I do not see the value of a single sign on via Facebook if the only thing that was established as secure was the access_token - becuase for what I can see it clearly is not secure. Access tokens that never have an expire date do not change. Access_tokens are different for every user, to access to another site could be held tight to just a single user, but compromising even a single user's data is unacceptable. http://www.creatingstory.com/images/InTheOpen.png Went back and did more research on this: FINDINGS: Went back an re ran the canvas application to verify that it was not any of my code that was not broadcasting. In this call: HTTP GET /connect.php/en_US/js/CacheData HTTP/1.1 The USER ID is clearly visible in the cookie. So USER_ID's are fully visible, but they are already. Anyone can go to pretty much any ones page and hover over the image and see the USER ID. So no big threat. APP_ID are also easily obtainable - but . . . http://www.creatingstory.com/images/InTheOpen2.png The above file clearly shows the FULL ACCESS TOKEN clearly in the OPEN via a Facebook initiated call. Am I wrong. TELL ME I AM WRONG because I want to be wrong about this. I have since reset my app secret so I am showing the real sniff of the Canvas Page being loaded. Additional data 02/20/2011: @ifaour - I appreciate the time you took to compile your response. I am pretty familiar with the OAuth process and have a pretty solid understanding of the signed_request unpacking and utilization of the access_token. I perform a substantial amount of my processing on the server and my Facebook server side flows are all complete and function without any flaw that I know of. The application secret is secure and never passed to the front end application and is also changed regularly. I am being as fanatical about security as I can be, knowing there is so much I don’t know that could come back and bite me. Two huge access_token issues: The issues concern the possible utilization of the access_token from the USER AGENT (browser). During the FB.INIT() process of the Facebook JavaScript SDK, a cookie is created as well as an object in memory called a session object. This object, along with the cookie contain the access_token, session, a secret, and uid and status of the connection. The session object is structured such that is supports both the new OAuth and the legacy flows. With OAuth, the access_token and status are pretty much al that is used in the session object. The first issue is that the access_token is used to make HTTPS calls to the GRAPH API. If you had the access_token, you could do this from any browser: https://graph.facebook.com/220439?access_token=... and it will return a ton of information about the user. So any one with the access token can gain access to a Facebook account. You can also make additional calls to any info the user has granted access to the application tied to the access_token. At first I thought that a call into the GRAPH had to have a Callback to the URL established in the App Setup, but I tested it as mentioned below and it will return info back right into the browser. Adding that callback feature would be a good idea I think, tightens things up a bit. The second issue is utilization of some unique private secured data that identifies the user to the third party data base, i.e., like in my case, I would use a single sign on to populate user information into my database using this unique secured data item (i.e., access_token which contains the APP ID, the USER ID, and a hashed with secret sequence). None of this is a problem on the server side. You get a signed_request, you unpack it with secret, make HTTPS calls, get HTTPS responses back. When a user has information entered via the USER AGENT(browser) that must be stored via a POST, this unique secured data element would be sent via HTTPS such that they are validated prior to data base insertion. However, If there is NO secured piece of unique data that is supplied via the single sign on process, then there is no way to guarantee unauthorized access. The access_token is the one piece of data that is utilized by Facebook to make the HTTPS calls into the GRAPH API. it is considered unique in regards to BOTH the USER and the APPLICATION and is initially secure via the signed_request packaging. If however, it is subsequently transmitted in the clear and if I can sniff the wire and obtain the access_token, then I can pretend to be the application and gain the information they have authorized the application to see. I tried the above example from a Safari and IE browser and it returned all of my information to me in the browser. In conclusion, the access_token is part of the signed_request and that is how the application initially obtains it. After OAuth authentication and authorization, i.e., the USER has logged into Facebook and then runs your app, the access_token is stored as mentioned above and I have sniffed it such that I see it stored in a Cookie that is transmitted over the wire, resulting in there being NO UNIQUE SECURED IDENTIFIABLE piece of information that can be used to support interaction with the database, or in other words, unless there were one more piece of secure data sent along with the access_token to my database, i.e., a password, I would not be able to discern if it is a legitimate call. Luckily I utilized secure AJAX via POST and the call has to come from the same domain, but I am sure there is a way to hijack that. I am totally open to any ideas on this topic on how to uniquely identify my USERS other than adding another layer (password) via this single sign on process or if someone would just share with me that I read and analyzed my data incorrectly and that the access_token is always secure over the wire. Mahalo nui loa in advance.

  Read the article

• axis2 web service behave differently when tested with web service client or with local test class

  - by Stefano

  Hello I need to update a facade to some web service proxy classes to a third party web service, and expose them as a service. This for two reason : to maintain the same interface for all application that need to use the system : actually its migrating and there are a few differences in the third party ws (method names); and to expose a simplified interface. The third party has provided me with a manual and some pregenerated proxy classes to their service (the java file says generated with axis2 1,4) . I've used netbeans 6.8 and the axis2 plugin to create an axis2 service . This service contains the proxy classes and the facade class which instantiate the web service proxy and calls its method; the facade class is exposed as service. I've used axis2 1.4 (at beginnig and later 1.5 ) and tomcat 6.0. The first test i did was to call the facede methods from inside the project itself and it worked. Then i've created a new project with a jax-ws web service client to call my class deployed on axis2. At this point has happened two strange thing : In the axis2 services page has appeared the third party proxy class as if it were a new service (if i try to get the wsdl axis raises an error ). eg. the proxy interface is named WebServiceAPI (_stub is the concrete class) and , after the first call to my service , i find a new "WebServicesAPI1272968932531_1" service inside axis . The call obvoiusly fail i've began to sniff soap messages with wireshark and i've found they differs when using proxy classes direclty from my facade test class by the messages created after being deployed on axis. i've noticed they differs for the presence of the soap header in the failing message. any help would be greatly appreciated : maybe i messed up something, there might be some incompatibilities or version mistakes? below i've added the signature of the third party proxy, its impementation and the different soap messages: /* * WebServicesAPI.java * This file was auto-generated from WSDL * by the Apache Axis2 version: 1.4 Built on : Apr 26, 2008 (06:24:30 EDT) */ package com.ibm.eci.wsapi; public interface WebServicesAPI { public com.ibm.eci.wsapi.ArrayOfstring getWorkItemHistory( java.lang.String stateKey,java.lang.String logonID,com.ibm.eci.wsapi.RepoItemHandle workItemHandle) throws java.rmi.RemoteException,com.ibm.eci.wsapi.ExceptionException0; ...etc the concrete class is : /** * WebServicesAPIStub.java * * This file was auto-generated from WSDL * by the Apache Axis2 version: 1.4 Built on : Apr 26, 2008 (06:24:30 EDT) */ package com.ibm.eci.wsapi; /* * WebServicesAPIStub java implementation */ public class WebServicesAPIStub extends org.apache.axis2.client.Stub implements WebServicesAPI{ protected org.apache.axis2.description.AxisOperation[] _operations; ... public com.ibm.eci.wsapi.ArrayOfstring getWorkItemHistory( java.lang.String stateKey297,java.lang.String logonID298,com.ibm.eci.wsapi.RepoItemHandle workItemHandle299) throws java.rmi.RemoteException ,com.ibm.eci.wsapi.ExceptionException0{ org.apache.axis2.context.MessageContext _messageContext = null; try{ org.apache.axis2.client.OperationClient _operationClient = _serviceClient.createClient(_operations[0].getName()); _operationClient.getOptions().setAction("\"\""); _operationClient.getOptions().setExceptionToBeThrownOnSOAPFault(true); addPropertyToOperationClient(_operationClient,org.apache.axis2.description.WSDL2Constants.ATTR_WHTTP_QUERY_PARAMETER_SEPARATOR,"&"); // create a message context _messageContext = new org.apache.axis2.context.MessageContext(); // create SOAP envelope with that payload org.apache.axiom.soap.SOAPEnvelope env = null; com.ibm.eci.wsapi.GetWorkItemHistoryE dummyWrappedType = null; env = toEnvelope(getFactory(_operationClient.getOptions().getSoapVersionURI()), stateKey297, logonID298, workItemHandle299, dummyWrappedType, optimizeContent(new javax.xml.namespace.QName("http://wsapi.eci.ibm.com", "getWorkItemHistory"))); //adding SOAP soap_headers _serviceClient.addHeadersToEnvelope(env); // set the message context with that soap envelope _messageContext.setEnvelope(env); // add the message contxt to the operation client _operationClient.addMessageContext(_messageContext); //execute the operation client _operationClient.execute(true); org.apache.axis2.context.MessageContext _returnMessageContext = _operationClient.getMessageContext( org.apache.axis2.wsdl.WSDLConstants.MESSAGE_LABEL_IN_VALUE); org.apache.axiom.soap.SOAPEnvelope _returnEnv = _returnMessageContext.getEnvelope(); java.lang.Object object = fromOM( _returnEnv.getBody().getFirstElement() , com.ibm.eci.wsapi.GetWorkItemHistoryResponseE.class, getEnvelopeNamespaces(_returnEnv)); return getGetWorkItemHistoryResponse_return((com.ibm.eci.wsapi.GetWorkItemHistoryResponseE)object); ... the failing soap message (generated by jax-ws client to the axis deployed service) is : POST /vbr_wsapi/services/WebServicesAPI.Endpoint HTTP/1.1 Content-Type: text/xml; charset=UTF-8 SOAPAction: "" User-Agent: Axis2 Host: n0611049:9083 Transfer-Encoding: chunked <?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?> <soapenv:Envelope xmlns:soapenv="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelope/"> <soapenv:Header xmlns:wsa="http://www.w3.org/2005/08/addressing"> <wsa:To>http://n0611049:9083/vbr_wsapi/services/WebServicesAPI.Endpoint</wsa:To> <wsa:MessageID>urn:uuid:A31AD99897F9045E981272964443982</wsa:MessageID><wsa:Action>""</wsa:Action> </soapenv:Header> <soapenv:Body> <ns1:initializeProps xmlns:ns1="http://wsapi.eci.ibm.com"> <props><val>client.locale=it_IT</val> </props> </ns1:initializeProps> </soapenv:Body> </soapenv:Envelope> HTTP/1.1 500 Internal Server Error Content-Type: text/xml; charset=UTF-8 Content-Language: en-US Transfer-Encoding: chunked Connection: Close Date: Tue, 04 May 2010 09:16:15 GMT Server: WebSphere Application Server/7.0 <?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?> <soapenv:Envelope xmlns:soapenv="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelope/"> <soapenv:Header xmlns:wsa="http://www.w3.org/2005/08/addressing"> <wsa:Action>http://www.w3.org/2005/08/addressing/fault</wsa:Action> <wsa:RelatesTo>urn:uuid:A31AD99897F9045E981272964443982</wsa:RelatesTo> <wsa:FaultDetail> <wsa:ProblemAction> <wsa:Action>""</wsa:Action> </wsa:ProblemAction> </wsa:FaultDetail> </soapenv:Header> <soapenv:Body> <soapenv:Fault xmlns:wsa="http://www.w3.org/2005/08/addressing"> <faultcode>wsa:ActionNotSupported</faultcode> <faultstring>The [action] cannot be processed at the receiver.</faultstring> <detail /> </soapenv:Fault> </soapenv:Body> </soapenv:Envelope> the succesful call (generated by my local test class, not being deployed to axis yet) : POST /vbr_wsapi/services/WebServicesAPI.Endpoint HTTP/1.1 Content-Type: text/xml; charset=UTF-8 SOAPAction: "" User-Agent: Axis2 Host: n0611049:9083 Transfer-Encoding: chunked <?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?> <soapenv:Envelope xmlns:soapenv="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelope/"> <soapenv:Body> <ns1:initializeProps xmlns:ns1="http://wsapi.eci.ibm.com"> <props> <val>client.locale=it_IT</val> </props> </ns1:initializeProps> </soapenv:Body> </soapenv:Envelope> HTTP/1.1 200 OK Content-Type: text/xml; charset=UTF-8 Content-Language: en-US Transfer-Encoding: chunked Date: Tue, 04 May 2010 09:40:03 GMT Server: WebSphere Application Server/7.0 <?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?> <soapenv:Envelope xmlns:soapenv="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelope/"> <soapenv:Body> <dlwmin:initializePropsResponse xmlns:dlwmin="http://wsapi.eci.ibm.com"> <return>e0e40cc51ceb0adf96c582bb6e047b3d0f</return> </dlwmin:initializePropsResponse> </soapenv:Body> </soapenv:Envelope> POST /vbr_wsapi/services/WebServicesAPI.Endpoint HTTP/1.1 Content-Type: text/xml; charset=UTF-8 SOAPAction: "" User-Agent: Axis2 Host: n0611049:9083 Transfer-Encoding: chunked <?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?> <soapenv:Envelope xmlns:soapenv="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelope/"> <soapenv:Body> <ns1:logon xmlns:ns1="http://wsapi.eci.ibm.com"> <stateKey>e0e40cc51ceb0adf96c582bb6e047b3d0f</stateKey> <systemID>----</systemID> <authBundle> <password>-----</password> <sealed>false</sealed> <username>---</username> </authBundle> </ns1:logon> </soapenv:Body> </soapenv:Envelope> HTTP/1.1 200 OK Content-Type: text/xml; charset=UTF-8 Content-Language: en-US Transfer-Encoding: chunked Date: Tue, 04 May 2010 09:40:21 GMT Server: WebSphere Application Server/7.0 <?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?> <soapenv:Envelope xmlns:soapenv="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelope/"> <soapenv:Body> <dlwmin:logonResponse xmlns:dlwmin="http://wsapi.eci.ibm.com"> <return>e0e40cc51ceb0adf96c582bb6e047b3d10</return> </dlwmin:logonResponse> </soapenv:Body> </soapenv:Envelope> ... goes on with other calls

  Read the article

• Linux - Only first virtual interface can ping external gateway

  - by husvar

  I created 3 virtual interfaces with different mac addresses all linked to the same physical interface. I see that they successfully arp for the gw and they can ping (the request is coming in the packet capture in wireshark). However the ping utility does not count the responses. Does anyone knows the issue? I am running Ubuntu 14.04 in a VmWare. root@ubuntu:~# ip link sh 1: lo: <LOOPBACK,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 65536 qdisc noqueue state UNKNOWN mode DEFAULT group default link/loopback 00:00:00:00:00:00 brd 00:00:00:00:00:00 2: eth0: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1500 qdisc pfifo_fast state UP mode DEFAULT group default qlen 1000 link/ether 00:0c:29:bc:fc:8b brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff root@ubuntu:~# ip addr sh 1: lo: <LOOPBACK,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 65536 qdisc noqueue state UNKNOWN group default link/loopback 00:00:00:00:00:00 brd 00:00:00:00:00:00 inet 127.0.0.1/8 scope host lo valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever inet6 ::1/128 scope host valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever 2: eth0: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1500 qdisc pfifo_fast state UP group default qlen 1000 link/ether 00:0c:29:bc:fc:8b brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff inet6 fe80::20c:29ff:febc:fc8b/64 scope link valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever root@ubuntu:~# ip route sh root@ubuntu:~# ip link add link eth0 eth0.1 addr 00:00:00:00:00:11 type macvlan root@ubuntu:~# ip link add link eth0 eth0.2 addr 00:00:00:00:00:22 type macvlan root@ubuntu:~# ip link add link eth0 eth0.3 addr 00:00:00:00:00:33 type macvlan root@ubuntu:~# ip -4 link sh 1: lo: <LOOPBACK,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 65536 qdisc noqueue state UNKNOWN mode DEFAULT group default link/loopback 00:00:00:00:00:00 brd 00:00:00:00:00:00 2: eth0: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1500 qdisc pfifo_fast state UP mode DEFAULT group default qlen 1000 link/ether 00:0c:29:bc:fc:8b brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff 18: eth0.1@eth0: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST> mtu 1500 qdisc noop state DOWN mode DEFAULT group default link/ether 00:00:00:00:00:11 brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff 19: eth0.2@eth0: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST> mtu 1500 qdisc noop state DOWN mode DEFAULT group default link/ether 00:00:00:00:00:22 brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff 20: eth0.3@eth0: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST> mtu 1500 qdisc noop state DOWN mode DEFAULT group default link/ether 00:00:00:00:00:33 brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff root@ubuntu:~# ip -4 addr sh 1: lo: <LOOPBACK,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 65536 qdisc noqueue state UNKNOWN group default inet 127.0.0.1/8 scope host lo valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever root@ubuntu:~# ip -4 route sh root@ubuntu:~# dhclient -v eth0.1 Internet Systems Consortium DHCP Client 4.2.4 Copyright 2004-2012 Internet Systems Consortium. All rights reserved. For info, please visit https://www.isc.org/software/dhcp/ Listening on LPF/eth0.1/00:00:00:00:00:11 Sending on LPF/eth0.1/00:00:00:00:00:11 Sending on Socket/fallback DHCPDISCOVER on eth0.1 to 255.255.255.255 port 67 interval 3 (xid=0x568eac05) DHCPREQUEST of 192.168.1.145 on eth0.1 to 255.255.255.255 port 67 (xid=0x568eac05) DHCPOFFER of 192.168.1.145 from 192.168.1.254 DHCPACK of 192.168.1.145 from 192.168.1.254 bound to 192.168.1.145 -- renewal in 1473 seconds. root@ubuntu:~# dhclient -v eth0.2 Internet Systems Consortium DHCP Client 4.2.4 Copyright 2004-2012 Internet Systems Consortium. All rights reserved. For info, please visit https://www.isc.org/software/dhcp/ Listening on LPF/eth0.2/00:00:00:00:00:22 Sending on LPF/eth0.2/00:00:00:00:00:22 Sending on Socket/fallback DHCPDISCOVER on eth0.2 to 255.255.255.255 port 67 interval 3 (xid=0x21e3114e) DHCPREQUEST of 192.168.1.146 on eth0.2 to 255.255.255.255 port 67 (xid=0x21e3114e) DHCPOFFER of 192.168.1.146 from 192.168.1.254 DHCPACK of 192.168.1.146 from 192.168.1.254 bound to 192.168.1.146 -- renewal in 1366 seconds. root@ubuntu:~# dhclient -v eth0.3 Internet Systems Consortium DHCP Client 4.2.4 Copyright 2004-2012 Internet Systems Consortium. All rights reserved. For info, please visit https://www.isc.org/software/dhcp/ Listening on LPF/eth0.3/00:00:00:00:00:33 Sending on LPF/eth0.3/00:00:00:00:00:33 Sending on Socket/fallback DHCPDISCOVER on eth0.3 to 255.255.255.255 port 67 interval 3 (xid=0x11dc5f03) DHCPREQUEST of 192.168.1.147 on eth0.3 to 255.255.255.255 port 67 (xid=0x11dc5f03) DHCPOFFER of 192.168.1.147 from 192.168.1.254 DHCPACK of 192.168.1.147 from 192.168.1.254 bound to 192.168.1.147 -- renewal in 1657 seconds. root@ubuntu:~# ip -4 link sh 1: lo: <LOOPBACK,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 65536 qdisc noqueue state UNKNOWN mode DEFAULT group default link/loopback 00:00:00:00:00:00 brd 00:00:00:00:00:00 2: eth0: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1500 qdisc pfifo_fast state UP mode DEFAULT group default qlen 1000 link/ether 00:0c:29:bc:fc:8b brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff 18: eth0.1@eth0: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1500 qdisc noqueue state UNKNOWN mode DEFAULT group default link/ether 00:00:00:00:00:11 brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff 19: eth0.2@eth0: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1500 qdisc noqueue state UNKNOWN mode DEFAULT group default link/ether 00:00:00:00:00:22 brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff 20: eth0.3@eth0: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1500 qdisc noqueue state UNKNOWN mode DEFAULT group default link/ether 00:00:00:00:00:33 brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff root@ubuntu:~# ip -4 addr sh 1: lo: <LOOPBACK,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 65536 qdisc noqueue state UNKNOWN group default inet 127.0.0.1/8 scope host lo valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever 18: eth0.1@eth0: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1500 qdisc noqueue state UNKNOWN group default inet 192.168.1.145/24 brd 192.168.1.255 scope global eth0.1 valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever 19: eth0.2@eth0: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1500 qdisc noqueue state UNKNOWN group default inet 192.168.1.146/24 brd 192.168.1.255 scope global eth0.2 valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever 20: eth0.3@eth0: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1500 qdisc noqueue state UNKNOWN group default inet 192.168.1.147/24 brd 192.168.1.255 scope global eth0.3 valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever root@ubuntu:~# ip -4 route sh default via 192.168.1.254 dev eth0.1 192.168.1.0/24 dev eth0.1 proto kernel scope link src 192.168.1.145 192.168.1.0/24 dev eth0.2 proto kernel scope link src 192.168.1.146 192.168.1.0/24 dev eth0.3 proto kernel scope link src 192.168.1.147 root@ubuntu:~# arping -c 5 -I eth0.1 192.168.1.254 ARPING 192.168.1.254 from 192.168.1.145 eth0.1 Unicast reply from 192.168.1.254 [58:98:35:57:a0:70] 6.936ms Unicast reply from 192.168.1.254 [58:98:35:57:a0:70] 2.986ms Unicast reply from 192.168.1.254 [58:98:35:57:a0:70] 0.654ms Unicast reply from 192.168.1.254 [58:98:35:57:a0:70] 5.137ms Unicast reply from 192.168.1.254 [58:98:35:57:a0:70] 2.426ms Sent 5 probes (1 broadcast(s)) Received 5 response(s) root@ubuntu:~# arping -c 5 -I eth0.2 192.168.1.254 ARPING 192.168.1.254 from 192.168.1.146 eth0.2 Unicast reply from 192.168.1.254 [58:98:35:57:a0:70] 5.665ms Unicast reply from 192.168.1.254 [58:98:35:57:a0:70] 3.753ms Unicast reply from 192.168.1.254 [58:98:35:57:a0:70] 16.500ms Unicast reply from 192.168.1.254 [58:98:35:57:a0:70] 3.287ms Unicast reply from 192.168.1.254 [58:98:35:57:a0:70] 32.438ms Sent 5 probes (1 broadcast(s)) Received 5 response(s) root@ubuntu:~# arping -c 5 -I eth0.3 192.168.1.254 ARPING 192.168.1.254 from 192.168.1.147 eth0.3 Unicast reply from 192.168.1.254 [58:98:35:57:a0:70] 4.422ms Unicast reply from 192.168.1.254 [58:98:35:57:a0:70] 2.429ms Unicast reply from 192.168.1.254 [58:98:35:57:a0:70] 2.321ms Unicast reply from 192.168.1.254 [58:98:35:57:a0:70] 40.423ms Unicast reply from 192.168.1.254 [58:98:35:57:a0:70] 2.268ms Sent 5 probes (1 broadcast(s)) Received 5 response(s) root@ubuntu:~# tcpdump -n -i eth0.1 -v & [1] 5317 root@ubuntu:~# ping -c5 -q -I eth0.1 192.168.1.254 PING 192.168.1.254 (192.168.1.254) from 192.168.1.145 eth0.1: 56(84) bytes of data. tcpdump: listening on eth0.1, link-type EN10MB (Ethernet), capture size 65535 bytes 13:18:37.612558 IP (tos 0x0, ttl 64, id 2595, offset 0, flags [DF], proto ICMP (1), length 84) 192.168.1.145 > 192.168.1.254: ICMP echo request, id 5318, seq 2, length 64 13:18:37.618864 IP (tos 0x68, ttl 64, id 14493, offset 0, flags [none], proto ICMP (1), length 84) 192.168.1.254 > 192.168.1.145: ICMP echo reply, id 5318, seq 2, length 64 13:18:37.743650 ARP, Ethernet (len 6), IPv4 (len 4), Request who-has 192.168.1.87 tell 192.168.1.86, length 46 13:18:38.134997 IP (tos 0x0, ttl 128, id 23547, offset 0, flags [none], proto UDP (17), length 229) 192.168.1.86.138 > 192.168.1.255.138: NBT UDP PACKET(138) 13:18:38.614580 IP (tos 0x0, ttl 64, id 2596, offset 0, flags [DF], proto ICMP (1), length 84) 192.168.1.145 > 192.168.1.254: ICMP echo request, id 5318, seq 3, length 64 13:18:38.793479 IP (tos 0x68, ttl 64, id 14495, offset 0, flags [none], proto ICMP (1), length 84) 192.168.1.254 > 192.168.1.145: ICMP echo reply, id 5318, seq 3, length 64 13:18:39.151282 IP6 (class 0x68, hlim 255, next-header ICMPv6 (58) payload length: 32) fe80::5a98:35ff:fe57:e070 > ff02::1:ff6b:e9b4: [icmp6 sum ok] ICMP6, neighbor solicitation, length 32, who has 2001:818:d812:da00:8ae3:abff:fe6b:e9b4 source link-address option (1), length 8 (1): 58:98:35:57:a0:70 13:18:39.615612 IP (tos 0x0, ttl 64, id 2597, offset 0, flags [DF], proto ICMP (1), length 84) 192.168.1.145 > 192.168.1.254: ICMP echo request, id 5318, seq 4, length 64 13:18:39.746981 IP (tos 0x68, ttl 64, id 14496, offset 0, flags [none], proto ICMP (1), length 84) 192.168.1.254 > 192.168.1.145: ICMP echo reply, id 5318, seq 4, length 64 --- 192.168.1.254 ping statistics --- 5 packets transmitted, 5 received, 0% packet loss, time 4008ms rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 2.793/67.810/178.934/73.108 ms root@ubuntu:~# killall tcpdump >> /dev/null 2>&1 9 packets captured 12 packets received by filter 0 packets dropped by kernel [1]+ Done tcpdump -n -i eth0.1 -v root@ubuntu:~# tcpdump -n -i eth0.2 -v & [1] 5320 root@ubuntu:~# ping -c5 -q -I eth0.2 192.168.1.254 PING 192.168.1.254 (192.168.1.254) from 192.168.1.146 eth0.2: 56(84) bytes of data. tcpdump: listening on eth0.2, link-type EN10MB (Ethernet), capture size 65535 bytes 13:18:41.536874 ARP, Ethernet (len 6), IPv4 (len 4), Reply 192.168.1.254 is-at 58:98:35:57:a0:70, length 46 13:18:41.536933 IP (tos 0x0, ttl 64, id 2599, offset 0, flags [DF], proto ICMP (1), length 84) 192.168.1.146 > 192.168.1.254: ICMP echo request, id 5321, seq 1, length 64 13:18:41.539255 IP (tos 0x68, ttl 64, id 14507, offset 0, flags [none], proto ICMP (1), length 84) 192.168.1.254 > 192.168.1.146: ICMP echo reply, id 5321, seq 1, length 64 13:18:42.127715 ARP, Ethernet (len 6), IPv4 (len 4), Request who-has 192.168.1.87 tell 192.168.1.86, length 46 13:18:42.511725 IP (tos 0x0, ttl 64, id 2600, offset 0, flags [DF], proto ICMP (1), length 84) 192.168.1.146 > 192.168.1.254: ICMP echo request, id 5321, seq 2, length 64 13:18:42.514385 IP (tos 0x68, ttl 64, id 14527, offset 0, flags [none], proto ICMP (1), length 84) 192.168.1.254 > 192.168.1.146: ICMP echo reply, id 5321, seq 2, length 64 13:18:42.743856 ARP, Ethernet (len 6), IPv4 (len 4), Request who-has 192.168.1.87 tell 192.168.1.86, length 46 13:18:43.511727 IP (tos 0x0, ttl 64, id 2601, offset 0, flags [DF], proto ICMP (1), length 84) 192.168.1.146 > 192.168.1.254: ICMP echo request, id 5321, seq 3, length 64 13:18:43.513768 IP (tos 0x68, ttl 64, id 14528, offset 0, flags [none], proto ICMP (1), length 84) 192.168.1.254 > 192.168.1.146: ICMP echo reply, id 5321, seq 3, length 64 13:18:43.637598 IP (tos 0x0, ttl 128, id 23551, offset 0, flags [none], proto UDP (17), length 225) 192.168.1.86.17500 > 255.255.255.255.17500: UDP, length 197 13:18:43.641185 IP (tos 0x0, ttl 128, id 23552, offset 0, flags [none], proto UDP (17), length 225) 192.168.1.86.17500 > 192.168.1.255.17500: UDP, length 197 13:18:43.641201 IP (tos 0x0, ttl 128, id 23553, offset 0, flags [none], proto UDP (17), length 225) 192.168.1.86.17500 > 255.255.255.255.17500: UDP, length 197 13:18:43.743890 ARP, Ethernet (len 6), IPv4 (len 4), Request who-has 192.168.1.87 tell 192.168.1.86, length 46 13:18:44.510758 IP (tos 0x0, ttl 64, id 2602, offset 0, flags [DF], proto ICMP (1), length 84) 192.168.1.146 > 192.168.1.254: ICMP echo request, id 5321, seq 4, length 64 13:18:44.512892 IP (tos 0x68, ttl 64, id 14538, offset 0, flags [none], proto ICMP (1), length 84) 192.168.1.254 > 192.168.1.146: ICMP echo reply, id 5321, seq 4, length 64 13:18:45.510794 IP (tos 0x0, ttl 64, id 2603, offset 0, flags [DF], proto ICMP (1), length 84) 192.168.1.146 > 192.168.1.254: ICMP echo request, id 5321, seq 5, length 64 13:18:45.519701 IP (tos 0x68, ttl 64, id 14539, offset 0, flags [none], proto ICMP (1), length 84) 192.168.1.254 > 192.168.1.146: ICMP echo reply, id 5321, seq 5, length 64 13:18:49.287554 IP6 (class 0x68, hlim 255, next-header ICMPv6 (58) payload length: 32) fe80::5a98:35ff:fe57:e070 > ff02::1:ff6b:e9b4: [icmp6 sum ok] ICMP6, neighbor solicitation, length 32, who has 2001:818:d812:da00:8ae3:abff:fe6b:e9b4 source link-address option (1), length 8 (1): 58:98:35:57:a0:70 13:18:50.013463 IP (tos 0x0, ttl 255, id 50737, offset 0, flags [DF], proto UDP (17), length 73) 192.168.1.146.5353 > 224.0.0.251.5353: 0 [2q] PTR (QM)? _ipps._tcp.local. PTR (QM)? _ipp._tcp.local. (45) 13:18:50.218874 IP6 (class 0x68, hlim 255, next-header ICMPv6 (58) payload length: 32) fe80::5a98:35ff:fe57:e070 > ff02::1:ff6b:e9b4: [icmp6 sum ok] ICMP6, neighbor solicitation, length 32, who has 2001:818:d812:da00:8ae3:abff:fe6b:e9b4 source link-address option (1), length 8 (1): 58:98:35:57:a0:70 13:18:51.129961 IP6 (class 0x68, hlim 255, next-header ICMPv6 (58) payload length: 32) fe80::5a98:35ff:fe57:e070 > ff02::1:ff6b:e9b4: [icmp6 sum ok] ICMP6, neighbor solicitation, length 32, who has 2001:818:d812:da00:8ae3:abff:fe6b:e9b4 source link-address option (1), length 8 (1): 58:98:35:57:a0:70 13:18:52.197074 IP6 (hlim 255, next-header UDP (17) payload length: 53) 2001:818:d812:da00:200:ff:fe00:22.5353 > ff02::fb.5353: [udp sum ok] 0 [2q] PTR (QM)? _ipps._tcp.local. PTR (QM)? _ipp._tcp.local. (45) 13:18:54.128240 ARP, Ethernet (len 6), IPv4 (len 4), Request who-has 192.168.1.87 tell 192.168.1.86, length 46 --- 192.168.1.254 ping statistics --- 5 packets transmitted, 0 received, 100% packet loss, time 4000ms root@ubuntu:~# killall tcpdump >> /dev/null 2>&1 13:18:54.657731 IP6 (class 0x68, hlim 255, next-header ICMPv6 (58) payload length: 32) fe80::5a98:35ff:fe57:e070 > ff02::1:ff6b:e9b4: [icmp6 sum ok] ICMP6, neighbor solicitation, length 32, who has 2001:818:d812:da00:8ae3:abff:fe6b:e9b4 source link-address option (1), length 8 (1): 58:98:35:57:a0:70 13:18:54.743174 ARP, Ethernet (len 6), IPv4 (len 4), Request who-has 192.168.1.87 tell 192.168.1.86, length 46 25 packets captured 26 packets received by filter 0 packets dropped by kernel [1]+ Done tcpdump -n -i eth0.2 -v root@ubuntu:~# tcpdump -n -i eth0.3 icmp & [1] 5324 root@ubuntu:~# ping -c5 -q -I eth0.3 192.168.1.254 PING 192.168.1.254 (192.168.1.254) from 192.168.1.147 eth0.3: 56(84) bytes of data. tcpdump: verbose output suppressed, use -v or -vv for full protocol decode listening on eth0.3, link-type EN10MB (Ethernet), capture size 65535 bytes 13:18:56.373434 IP 192.168.1.147 > 192.168.1.254: ICMP echo request, id 5325, seq 1, length 64 13:18:57.372116 IP 192.168.1.147 > 192.168.1.254: ICMP echo request, id 5325, seq 2, length 64 13:18:57.381263 IP 192.168.1.254 > 192.168.1.147: ICMP echo reply, id 5325, seq 2, length 64 13:18:58.371141 IP 192.168.1.147 > 192.168.1.254: ICMP echo request, id 5325, seq 3, length 64 13:18:58.373275 IP 192.168.1.254 > 192.168.1.147: ICMP echo reply, id 5325, seq 3, length 64 13:18:59.371165 IP 192.168.1.147 > 192.168.1.254: ICMP echo request, id 5325, seq 4, length 64 13:18:59.373259 IP 192.168.1.254 > 192.168.1.147: ICMP echo reply, id 5325, seq 4, length 64 13:19:00.371211 IP 192.168.1.147 > 192.168.1.254: ICMP echo request, id 5325, seq 5, length 64 13:19:00.373278 IP 192.168.1.254 > 192.168.1.147: ICMP echo reply, id 5325, seq 5, length 64 --- 192.168.1.254 ping statistics --- 5 packets transmitted, 1 received, 80% packet loss, time 4001ms rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 13.666/13.666/13.666/0.000 ms root@ubuntu:~# killall tcpdump >> /dev/null 2>&1 9 packets captured 10 packets received by filter 0 packets dropped by kernel [1]+ Done tcpdump -n -i eth0.3 icmp root@ubuntu:~# arp -n Address HWtype HWaddress Flags Mask Iface 192.168.1.254 ether 58:98:35:57:a0:70 C eth0.1 192.168.1.254 ether 58:98:35:57:a0:70 C eth0.2 192.168.1.254 ether 58:98:35:57:a0:70 C eth0.3

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 18 19 20 21 22