Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)
Is it typical that ping times be higher when ping'ing machines within
my LAN because I'm using wireless clients and encryption on top of
that?
ie. Computers "lan3" and "lan5" are wireless laptop machines on my LAN
connected by a Linksys WAP54G, BEFSR41, WPC54G, and a DELL MiniPCI WLAN
card. The first response is always high then the ping time are normal.
Either at 1ms or 3ms.
C:\Documents and Settings\win05>ping lan3
Pinging lan3 [192.168.0.3] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 192.168.0.3: bytes=32 time=285ms TTL=255
Reply from 192.168.0.3: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=255
Reply from 192.168.0.3: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=255
Reply from 192.168.0.3: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=255
Ping statistics for 192.168.0.3:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 1ms, Maximum = 285ms, Average = 72ms
C:\Documents and Settings\win05>ping lan5
Pinging lan5 [192.168.0.5] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 192.168.0.5: bytes=32 time=284ms TTL=255
Reply from 192.168.0.5: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=255
Reply from 192.168.0.5: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=255
Reply from 192.168.0.5: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=255
Ping statistics for 192.168.0.5:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 0ms, Maximum = 284ms, Average = 71ms
Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)
When the response to the first in a series of pings is
significantly delayed (or lost), then odds are that this
is due to ARPing (and so is not refletive of actual
round trip latency over the network medium.)
Aaron
---
~ Is it typical that ping times be higher when ping'ing machines within
~ my LAN because I'm using wireless clients and encryption on top of
~ that?
~
~ ie. Computers "lan3" and "lan5" are wireless laptop machines on my LAN
~ connected by a Linksys WAP54G, BEFSR41, WPC54G, and a DELL MiniPCI WLAN
~ card. The first response is always high then the ping time are normal.
~ Either at 1ms or 3ms.
~
~ C:\Documents and Settings\win05>ping lan3
~
~ Pinging lan3 [192.168.0.3] with 32 bytes of data:
~
~ Reply from 192.168.0.3: bytes=32 time=285ms TTL=255
~ Reply from 192.168.0.3: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=255
~ Reply from 192.168.0.3: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=255
~ Reply from 192.168.0.3: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=255
~
~ Ping statistics for 192.168.0.3:
~ Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
~ Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
~ Minimum = 1ms, Maximum = 285ms, Average = 72ms
~
~
~ C:\Documents and Settings\win05>ping lan5
~
~ Pinging lan5 [192.168.0.5] with 32 bytes of data:
~
~ Reply from 192.168.0.5: bytes=32 time=284ms TTL=255
~ Reply from 192.168.0.5: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=255
~ Reply from 192.168.0.5: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=255
~ Reply from 192.168.0.5: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=255
~
~ Ping statistics for 192.168.0.5:
~ Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
~ Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
~ Minimum = 0ms, Maximum = 284ms, Average = 71ms
Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)
"d28" <kevindu28@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1103587045.458499.310760@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> So by adding the static inet_addr eth_addr values to the table on each
> machine in my LAN will make ping show faster response times?
try one, let us know OK , thanks.
(im fixed ip everywhere, mac filter/wep128 on 1-laptop)
Ping statistics for 192.168.0.21: ((& thru .28 all same zero ping to server
client cards))
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss)
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 0ms, Maximum = 0ms, Average = 0ms
If I ping router and/or 2nd wired ap I get first 14ms then 0 0 0 = 3ms
average
Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)
On 20 Dec 2004 15:57:25 -0800, "d28" <kevindu28@yahoo.com> wrote:
~ So by adding the static inet_addr eth_addr values to the table on each
~ machine in my LAN will make ping show faster response times?
Yeah, for those "initial" pings --- but maintaining all your nodes'
ARP tables manually hardly seems to be worth it, unless you have
more free time on your hands than I can imagine ...
You are about to answer a thread that has been inactive for more than 6 months. If you still wish to proceed, please ensure that your posting is original and does not duplicate or overlap any prior responses to this thread.