> Date: Tue, 7 May 2013 20:33:36 +0000
> From: Andy Smith <andy(a)bitfolk.com>
> What does "tcptraceroute 85.119.82.47 2222" look like?
On the Mac it is traceroute and it looks like this
traceroute 85.119.82.47 2222
traceroute to 85.119.82.47 (85.119.82.47), 64 hops max, 2222 byte packets
1 192.168.2.1 (192.168.2.1) 9.578 ms 1.762 ms 1.963 ms
2 84.78.9.126 (84.78.9.126) 40.588 ms 41.543 ms 45.456 ms
3 10.255.174.209 (10.255.174.209) 38.297 ms 38.617 ms 38.566 ms
4 10.255.174.33 (10.255.174.33) 41.854 ms 37.821 ms 36.853 ms
5 10.255.172.49 (10.255.172.49) 39.199 ms 38.932 ms 40.123 ms
6 10.255.40.10 (10.255.40.10) 36.765 ms 36.845 ms 36.554 ms
7 62.36.203.157 (62.36.203.157) 55.750 ms 56.870 ms 58.987 ms
8 62.36.204.185 (62.36.204.185) 57.058 ms 57.807 ms 57.442 ms
9 81.52.186.197 (81.52.186.197) 59.114 ms 62.327 ms 63.072 ms
10 gigabitethernet4-2-1.madcr3.Madrid.opentransit.net
(193.251.128.174) 58.554 ms 58.585 ms 57.062 ms
11 level3-4.GW.opentransit.net (193.251.254.14) 56.605 ms 57.650 ms
61.437 ms
12 4.69.158.165 (4.69.158.165) 59.837 ms 4.69.158.169 (4.69.158.169)
64.200 ms 57.763 ms
13 4.69.158.193 (4.69.158.193) 84.045 ms 4.69.158.201 (4.69.158.201)
79.156 ms 4.69.158.193 (4.69.158.193) 79.661 ms
14 ae-45-45.ebr1.London1.Level3.net (4.69.143.101) 87.670 ms
ae-48-48.ebr1.London1.Level3.net (4.69.143.113) 80.605 ms
ae-47-47.ebr1.London1.Level3.net (4.69.143.109) 87.810 ms
15 ae-58-113.csw1.London1.Level3.net (4.69.153.122) 79.427 ms
79.153 ms 82.978 ms
16 ae-15-51.car5.London1.Level3.net (4.69.139.70) 80.034 ms 83.230
ms 84.275 ms
17 * * *
18 kwak.bitfolk.com (85.119.80.6) 121.584 ms 81.296 ms 81.811 ms
19 swalk.eu (85.119.82.47) 90.571 ms 93.089 ms 89.064 ms
>
> Does port 22 work?
Now I am back where I am staying and cannot access the server to
change the port number to test it.
Steve
> What does "tcptraceroute 85.119.82.47 2222" look like? Here's what
> it looks like from Zen DSL:
>
> $ sudo tcptraceroute 85.119.82.47 2222
> Selected device eth0, address 192.168.0.8, port 42248 for outgoing packets
> Tracing the path to 85.119.82.47 on TCP port 2222, 30 hops max
> 1 192.168.0.7 0.539 ms 0.456 ms 0.459 ms
> 2 192.168.1.1 1.271 ms 1.118 ms 1.151 ms
> 3 losubs.subs.dsl1.th-lon.zen.net.uk (62.3.84.17) 20.372 ms 20.937 ms 21.221 ms
> 4 ge-2-1-0-127.cr2.th-lon.zen.net.uk (62.3.84.237) 21.579 ms 20.602 ms 21.884 ms
> 5 195.66.224.34 21.450 ms 22.067 ms 22.186 ms
> 6 kwak.bitfolk.com (85.119.80.6) 21.823 ms 21.810 ms 21.224 ms
> 7 swalk.eu (85.119.82.47) [open] 22.171 ms 21.821 ms 21.212 ms
Thanks. It is getting more complicated :( I am in an internet cafe
using Windows and cannot run that command. When I arrive where I am
staying I will have access to a bash command line. A few minutes ago I
successfully logged into the box using putty. I looked at
/var/log/security and the previous attempts to log in were recorded. I
guess that means that the initial ssh request was received.
Unfotunately putty then crashed and I am unable to access it at all
now. There is no response to a ping. Maybe it is a temporary blip or
the server has crashed (the centos installation can be a bit flaky and
does stop responding every ferw months)
>
>> Can anyone advise me on what the problem is,
>
> Probably something in the middle is injecting a TCP reset or
> otherwise blocking the connection. The tcptraceroute may help to see
> where.
>
>> why an ISP might do whatever it does to stop the connection
>
> I can't really speculate as to why they might not want you to use
> port 2222. Maybe the number 2222 is against the law there.
I doubt if that port in particular is blocked. It was a semi-random
number I picked. When I lived in Spain this ISP was quite flexible and
I ran ftp, apache, ssh and a few other things with out any problems
from a domestic adsl connection. I guess it is a glitch rather than
something evil.
>
>> or suggest some sort of work around.
>
> Does port 22 work?
I don´t know and cannot test it at the moment.
>
>> PS I know I should be using SSH with authentication key instead of
>> password but I have been a bit lazy getting around to it.
>
> The problem here seems more fundamental.
Thanks for the help. I will get back to you when I have the
information you requested.
Steve
