Re: ARP ping instead of ICMP ping for gateway latency check ?

[fairmont <mikejohnhouse@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2095 bytes --]

Have you tried tracepath since it uses UDP?

tracepath -4 -b <outside ipV4 address>
or
tracepath -6 -b <outside ipV6 address>
or even
tracepath -b www.google.com

TCP ping would be another method.


On Tue, Apr 22, 2025 at 8:35 AM Michael Tremer <michael.tremer@ipfire.org>
wrote:

> Hello Robin,
>
> > On 20 Apr 2025, at 23:52, Robin Roevens <robin.roevens@disroot.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi All
> >
> > 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’t 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’t 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 <http://ping.ipfire.org/> though. So the graph
> should always have some data to show.
>
> Best,
> -Michael
>
> >
> > Regards
> > Robin
> >
> > --
> > Dit bericht is gescanned op virussen en andere gevaarlijke
> > inhoud door MailScanner en lijkt schoon te zijn.
> >
> >
>
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2920 bytes --]