From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail02.haj.ipfire.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail02.haj.ipfire.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4ZhlCZ3Qf5z32dy for ; Tue, 22 Apr 2025 14:35:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail01.ipfire.org (mail01.haj.ipfire.org [172.28.1.202]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (secp384r1) server-digest SHA384 client-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "mail01.haj.ipfire.org", Issuer "R10" (verified OK)) by mail02.haj.ipfire.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4ZhlCV6VsQz2y9H for ; Tue, 22 Apr 2025 14:35:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail01.ipfire.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4ZhlCV2X1RzPV; Tue, 22 Apr 2025 14:35:50 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ipfire.org; s=202003ed25519; t=1745332550; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=QOz2QJY75YQxxkmWWmjLbR/BEi0rYWAZmNRDnFh8ecM=; b=RduMb1xNq7fLdUsbXuIkKiQIdVJrKeSe1KHO63+QpKK7Zk5P87kNpuCHLQ+jdq5ft5D/rN ZVbyBHhUmHzJwNAQ== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ipfire.org; s=202003rsa; t=1745332550; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=QOz2QJY75YQxxkmWWmjLbR/BEi0rYWAZmNRDnFh8ecM=; b=Do5A7Db4baQQhGWObdcpo3kugo9MzFQg0DfIRkZudKOqC3CRIQk+XKoSfG1tAi3ZI4wKxR 9BV5P1TSyuIiKmCjIoPidB/j8N/EhINzTKP75siD8HI0vKW6GFwJUvFr+BNmQUkLU7jcuw eZo6gN2o/hhNRiU2Vx7Vf+weSafB8KNFDv8suoaljY7xEEbFtsweoa+D2HGw5jZmU9OKUl ORXHPk9QHBLqEgycoeHYGv1gNWKQ7/dM6aYGWotnnpCSmu7Vj+iowZuP0DqACd5ZEZf4os CnaIc2Z9RHp7G/n37di3YDoIy1+iiMW6FK8ymWNSuttEelLINHlmVjXZ0lDGuQ== Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: Sender: Mail-Followup-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: ARP ping instead of ICMP ping for gateway latency check ? From: Michael Tremer In-Reply-To: Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2025 15:35:49 +0100 Cc: development@lists.ipfire.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: To: Robin Roevens Hello Robin, > On 20 Apr 2025, at 23:52, Robin Roevens = wrote: >=20 > Hi All >=20 > I recently changed my internet provider and I noticed that both the > gateway graph on cgi-bin/netother.cgi and my Zabbix gateway ping check > no longer work. Yes, some ISPs don=E2=80=99t respond do ICMP echo requests to the = gateway. I have no idea why really, but it is not uncommon. > It seems that my current provider blocks ICMP pings on the gateway > address. > So I was wondering if it wouldn't be better to use arping instead of > normal ping to check the latency of the gateway? This should always > works regardless of firewalls of the provider.. I think? This is a good idea. An ARP ping should always work, because otherwise = there is no way to discover the layer 2 address of the gateway. But that = obviously only applies to internet connections that actually use ARP. = PPP connections don=E2=80=99t use ARP for example. We are also using collectd which is using liboping and that only = supports ICMP. > I can quite easily change this Zabbix check. But I'm not sure about = the > graph on netother.cgi; I can look into that if you all think that > change would be a good idea? Or if anyone could give me some pointers > on where to start looking? I think so. It could be an option for the future. If the gateway does not respond to pings, you should automatically fall = back to ping.ipfire.org though. So the graph = should always have some data to show. Best, -Michael >=20 > Regards > Robin >=20 > --=20 > Dit bericht is gescanned op virussen en andere gevaarlijke > inhoud door MailScanner en lijkt schoon te zijn. >=20 >=20