http://blog.wompom.org/index.php/2009/02/18/the-story-of-ping1/ a web-log Sat, 31 Jul 2010 16:05:16 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.1.2 http://blog.wompom.org/index.php/2009/02/18/the-story-of-ping1/#comment-15476 Stephen Quinney Wed, 18 Feb 2009 09:37:20 +0000 http://blog.wompom.org/index.php/2009/02/18/the-story-of-ping1/#comment-15476 So, whose DNS server did you manage to DOS? So, whose DNS server did you manage to DOS?

]]> http://blog.wompom.org/index.php/2009/02/18/the-story-of-ping1/#comment-15501 Marius Gedminas Wed, 18 Feb 2009 20:57:13 +0000 http://blog.wompom.org/index.php/2009/02/18/the-story-of-ping1/#comment-15501 It's even funnier when those DNS lookups are slow. You get second-long pauses between the pings, yet every one of them claims a round-trip time of 20ms. It’s even funnier when those DNS lookups are slow. You get second-long pauses between the pings, yet every one of them claims a round-trip time of 20ms.

]]> http://blog.wompom.org/index.php/2009/02/18/the-story-of-ping1/#comment-15504 Aneurin Price Wed, 18 Feb 2009 23:51:46 +0000 http://blog.wompom.org/index.php/2009/02/18/the-story-of-ping1/#comment-15504 So *that's* why ping responses can take three seconds while claiming a ping time of 123ms, or pause for a while and then seven arrive at once, all claiming to have taken the same time. That's bugged me for years. Maybe I'll start using dnsmasq or something. So *that’s* why ping responses can take three seconds while claiming a ping time of 123ms, or pause for a while and then seven arrive at once, all claiming to have taken the same time.
That’s bugged me for years. Maybe I'll start using dnsmasq or something.

]]> http://blog.wompom.org/index.php/2009/02/18/the-story-of-ping1/#comment-15588 Zerd Mon, 23 Feb 2009 00:08:40 +0000 http://blog.wompom.org/index.php/2009/02/18/the-story-of-ping1/#comment-15588 Oh.. that's why it's slow. Slow DNS reveals flaw in ping(1) :) Oh.. that’s why it’s slow.
Slow DNS reveals flaw in ping(1) :)

]]>