Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 2, Lost = 2 (50% loss) transmit failed. Reply from 192.168.179.4: Destination Host Unreachable. If this message is shown, it means "Although ICMP Echo Request was sent to the destination IP, but the "Host Unreachable" code in "ICMP Destination Unreachable" is returned from the NW device in the middle of the route (instead of returning the ICMP Echo Reply packet from the destination IP). It is because there is a part where communication does not pass through the firewall etc of the NW device, or the ICMP is stopped by Windows firewall, firewalld, security software on the opposite host side.Įxceptionally, in the case of Ping within the same segment, it is displayed like this even if there is no ARP response from the destination host. In this state, it can not be determined whether ICMP Echo Request is packet loss in the middle of the route or ICMP Echo Reply is packet loss. If this message is shown, it means "Although ICMP Echo Request was sent to the destination IP, the ICMP Echo Reply did not return for the timeout (default 3 seconds) elapsed" If you can not understand below, please learn about the following two about ICMP.Ībout ICMP and ICMP type and codes Request timed out The cause depends on the displayed result. I will describe it later, Even if it is not the ICMP Echo Reply from the destination IP (even in Destination Unreachable), if any ICMP packet is received, it will not be counted as a loss. "Lost = 0" means "In response to ICMP Echo Request transmitted multiple times (default 4 times in the above example), any kind of ICMP packet was received each time". If you sent "ICMP Echo Request" to dst IP and are received "ICMP Echo Reply" from the IP, it is displayed as above regarded as success. ![]() Minimum = 3ms, Maximum = 9ms, Average = 5ms Ping statistics for 192.168.179.1:Packets: Sent = 4、Received = 4、Lost = 0 (0% loss),Īpproximate round trip times in milli-seconds: ![]() ![]() TL DR: Always SysPrep your servers (or workstations) as part of your deployment process.Pinging 192.168.179.1 with 32 bytes of data: ![]() That being said, Michael Murgolo's Sysprep, Machine SIDs and Other Myths tentatively agrees with Mark's post but adds a dash of caution, saying there are a number of problems that turned out to be caused by duplicate SIDs (or more appropriately by not SysPrep-ing your servers as part of your cloning or deployment process). It basically boils down to a combination of a lack of confidence in the idea that duplicate SIDs actually cause the problems that people think they do and lack of confidence that a tool like NewSID actually changes all of the locations where the SID of the computer is hidden. If you read Mark Russinovich’s Blog post The Machine SID Duplication Myth (and Why Sysprep Matters) you can get an idea of Microsoft's justification for depreciating NewSID. Did you clone the effected virtual machines from an existing image or from each other? I'm inclined to think that if you did, they might have duplicate SIDs since it only effects Domain Accounts and not Local Accounts (I'm assuming you have tested with multiple accounts of both types to make sure it is not tied to those accounts specifically).
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |