On CentOS and Fedora systems you will want to issue the following commands to update repositories, upgrade installed packages, and install the MTR program:
# yum update # yum install mtr
To test the route and connection quality of traffic to the destination host example.com, run the following command from the desired source host:
# mtr -rw example.com
Reading MTR Reports
Because MTR reports contain a wealth of information, they may be difficult to interpret at first. Consider the following example from a local connection to google.com:
$ mtr --report google.com HOST: example Loss% Snt Last Avg Best Wrst StDev 1. inner-cake 0.0% 10 2.8 2.1 1.9 2.8 0.3 2. outer-cake 0.0% 10 3.2 2.6 2.4 3.2 0.3 3. 68.85.118.13 0.0% 10 9.8 12.2 8.7 18.2 3.0 4. po-20-ar01.absecon.nj.panjde 0.0% 10 10.2 10.4 8.9 14.2 1.6 5. be-30-crs01.audubon.nj.panjd 0.0% 10 10.8 12.2 10.1 16.6 1.7 6. pos-0-12-0-0-ar01.plainfield 0.0% 10 13.4 14.6 12.6 21.6 2.6 7. pos-0-6-0-0-cr01.newyork.ny. 0.0% 10 15.2 15.3 13.9 18.2 1.3 8. pos-0-4-0-0-pe01.111eighthav 0.0% 10 16.5 16.2 14.5 19.3 1.3 9. as15169-3.111eighthave.ny.ib 0.0% 10 16.0 17.1 14.2 27.7 3.9 10. 72.14.238.232 0.0% 10 19.1 22.0 13.9 43.3 11.1 11. 209.85.241.148 0.0% 10 15.1 16.2 14.8 20.2 1.6 12. lga15s02-in-f104.1e100.net 0.0% 10 15.6 16.9 15.2 20.6 1.7
The command issued to generate the report is mtr –report google.com. This uses the report option which sends 10 packets to the host google.com and generates the output. Without the –report option, mtr will run continuously in an interactive environment. The interactive mode reflects current round trip times to each host. In most cases, the –report mode provides sufficient data in a useful format.
Following the command, MTR generates its output. Typically, MTR reports take a few seconds to generate. Do not be alarmed if it takes a few moments to complete the report. The report is comprised of a series of hops (12 in this case). “Hops” are the nodes, or routers, on the Internet that packets transverse to get to their destination. In the above example, packets travel through the “inner-cake” and “outer-cake” local network devices and then to “68.85.118.13”” followed by a series of named hosts. The names for the hosts are determined by reverse DNS lookups. If you want to omit the rDNS lookups you can use the –no-dns option, which would produce output similar to the following:
% mtr --no-dns --report google.com HOST: deleuze Loss% Snt Last Avg Best Wrst StDev 1. 192.168.1.1 0.0% 10 2.2 2.2 2.0 2.7 0.2 2. 68.85.118.13 0.0% 10 8.6 11.0 8.4 17.8 3.0 3. 68.86.210.126 0.0% 10 9.1 12.1 8.5 24.3 5.2 4. 68.86.208.22 0.0% 10 12.2 15.1 11.7 23.4 4.4 5. 68.85.192.86 0.0% 10 17.2 14.8 13.2 17.2 1.3 6. 68.86.90.25 0.0% 10 14.2 16.4 14.2 20.3 1.9 7. 68.86.86.194 0.0% 10 17.6 16.8 15.5 18.1 0.9 8. 75.149.230.194 0.0% 10 15.0 20.1 15.0 33.8 5.6 9. 72.14.238.232 0.0% 10 15.6 18.7 14.1 32.8 5.9 10. 209.85.241.148 0.0% 10 16.3 16.9 14.7 21.2 2.2 11. 66.249.91.104 0.0% 10 22.2 18.6 14.2 36.0 6.5
As a matter of best practice when discussing MTR reports, it is best to refer to any issue in terms of its hop number. Beyond simply seeing the path between servers that packets take to reach their host, MTR provides valuable statistics regarding the durability of that connection in the seven columns that follow. The Loss% column shows the percentage of packet loss at each hop. The Snt column counts the number of packets sent. The –report option will send 10 packets unless specified with –report-cycles=[number-of-packets], where [number-of-packets] represents the total number of packets that you want to send to the remote host.
The next four columns Last, Avg, Best, and Wrst are all measurements of latency in milliseconds (e.g. ms). Last is the latency of the last packet sent, Avg is average latency of all packets, while Best and Wrst display the best (shortest) and worst (longest) round trip time for a packet to this host. In most cases, the average (Avg) column should be the focus of your attention.
The final column, StDev, provides the standard deviation of the latencies to each host. The higher the standard deviation, the greater the difference is between measurements of latency. Standard deviation allows you to assess if the mean (average) provided represents the true center of the data set, or has been skewed by some sort of phenomena or measurement error. For example, if the standard deviation is high, the latency measurements were inconsistent. While some could have been low (i.e. 25ms), others may have been very high (i.e. 350ms). After averaging the latencies of the 10 packets sent, the average looks normal but may in fact not represent the data very well. If the standard deviation is high, take a look at the best and worst latency measurements to make sure the average is a good representation of the actual latency and not the result of too much fluctuation.
In most circumstances, you may think of the MTR output in three major sections. Depending on configurations, the first 2 or 3 hops often represent the source host’s ISP, while the last 2 or 3 hops represent the destination host’s ISP. The hops in between are the routers the packet traverses to reach its destination.
For example if MTR is run from your home PC to your Linode, the first 2 or 3 hops belong to your ISP. The last 3 hops belong to the datacenter where your Linode resides. Any hops in the middle are intermediate hops. When running MTR locally, if you see an abnormality in the first few hops near the source, contact your local service provider or investigate your local networking configuration. Conversely, if you see abnormalities near the destination you may want to contact the operator of the destination server or network support for that machine (e.g. Linode). Unfortunately, in cases where there are problems on the intermediate hops, both service providers will have limited ability to address those glitches.
Analyzing MTR Reports
Verifying Packet Loss
When analyzing MTR output, you are looking for two things: loss and latency. First, let’s talk about loss. If you see a percentage of loss at any particular hop, that may be an indication that there is a problem with that particular router. However, it is common practice among some service providers to rate limit the ICMP traffic that MTR uses. This can give the illusion of packet loss when there is in fact no loss. To determine if the loss you’re seeing is real or due to rate limiting, take a look at the subsequent hop. If that hop shows a loss of 0.0%, then you can be pretty sure that you’re seeing ICMP rate limiting and not actual loss. See below for an example:
root@localhost:~# mtr --report www.google.com HOST: example Loss% Snt Last Avg Best Wrst StDev 1. 63.247.74.43 0.0% 10 0.3 0.6 0.3 1.2 0.3 2. 63.247.64.157 50.0% 10 0.4 1.0 0.4 6.1 1.8 3. 209.51.130.213 0.0% 10 0.8 2.7 0.8 19.0 5.7 4. aix.pr1.atl.google.com 0.0% 10 6.7 6.8 6.7 6.9 0.1 5. 72.14.233.56 0.0% 10 7.2 8.3 7.1 16.4 2.9 6. 209.85.254.247 0.0% 10 39.1 39.4 39.1 39.7 0.2 7. 64.233.174.46 0.0% 10 39.6 40.4 39.4 46.9 2.3 8. gw-in-f147.1e100.net 0.0% 10 39.6 40.5 39.5 46.7 2.2
In this case, the loss reported between hops 1 and 2 is likely due to rate limiting on the second hop. Although traffic to the remaining eight hops all touch the second hop, there is no packet loss. If the loss continues for more than one hop, than it is possible that there is some packet loss or routing issues. Remember that rate limiting and loss can happen concurrently. In this case, take the lowest percentage of loss in a sequence as the actual loss. For instance, consider the following output:
root@localhost:~# mtr --report www.google.com HOST: localhost Loss% Snt Last Avg Best Wrst StDev 1. 63.247.74.43 0.0% 10 0.3 0.6 0.3 1.2 0.3 2. 63.247.64.157 0.0% 10 0.4 1.0 0.4 6.1 1.8 3. 209.51.130.213 60.0% 10 0.8 2.7 0.8 19.0 5.7 4. aix.pr1.atl.google.com 60.0% 10 6.7 6.8 6.7 6.9 0.1 5. 72.14.233.56 50.0% 10 7.2 8.3 7.1 16.4 2.9 6. 209.85.254.247 40.0% 10 39.1 39.4 39.1 39.7 0.2 7. 64.233.174.46 40.0% 10 39.6 40.4 39.4 46.9 2.3 8. gw-in-f147.1e100.net 40.0% 10 39.6 40.5 39.5 46.7 2.2
In this case, you see 60% loss between hops 2 and 3 as well as between hops 3 and 4. You can assume that the third and fourth hop is likely losing some amount of traffic because no subsequent host reports zero loss. However, some of the loss is due to rate limiting as several of the final hops are only experiencing 40% loss. When different amounts of loss are reported, always trust the reports from later hops.
Some loss can also be explained by problems in the return route. Packets will reach their destination without error, but have a hard time making the return trip. This will be apparent in the report, but may be difficult to deduce from the output of MTR. For this reason it is often best to collect MTR reports in both directions when you’re experiencing an issue.
Additionally, resist the temptation to investigate or report all incidences of packet loss in your connections. The Internet protocols are designed to be resilient to some network degradation, and the routes that data takes across the Internet can fluctuate in response to load, brief maintenance events, and other routing issues. If your MTR report shows small amounts of loss in the neighborhood of 10%, there is no cause for real concern as the application layer will compensate for the loss which is likely transient.
Understanding Network Latency
In addition to helping you assess packet loss, MTR will also help you assess the latency of a connection between your host and the target host. By virtue of physical constraints, latency always increases with the number of hops in a route. However, the increases should be consistent and linear. Unfortunately, latency is often relative and very dependent on the quality of both host’s connections and their physical distance. When evaluating MTR reports for potentially problematic connections, consider earlier fully functional reports as context in addition to known connection speeds between other hosts in a given area.
The connection quality may also affect the amount of latency you experience for a particular route. Predictably, dial-up connections will have much higher latency than cable modem connections to the same destination. Consider the following MTR report which shows a high latency:
root@localhost:~# mtr --report www.google.com HOST: localhost Loss% Snt Last Avg Best Wrst StDev 1. 63.247.74.43 0.0% 10 0.3 0.6 0.3 1.2 0.3 2. 63.247.64.157 0.0% 10 0.4 1.0 0.4 6.1 1.8 3. 209.51.130.213 0.0% 10 0.8 2.7 0.8 19.0 5.7 4. aix.pr1.atl.google.com 0.0% 10 388.0 360.4 342.1 396.7 0.2 5. 72.14.233.56 0.0% 10 390.6 360.4 342.1 396.7 0.2 6. 209.85.254.247 0.0% 10 391.6 360.4 342.1 396.7 0.4 7. 64.233.174.46 0.0% 10 391.8 360.4 342.1 396.7 2.1 8. gw-in-f147.1e100.net 0.0% 10 392.0 360.4 342.1 396.7 1.2
The amount of latency jumps significantly between hops 3 and 4 and remains high. This may point to a network latency issue as round trip times remain high after the fourth hop. From this report, it is impossible to determine the cause although a saturated peering session, a poorly configured router, or a congested link are frequent causes.
Unfortunately, high latency does not always mean a problem with the current route. A report like the one above means that despite some sort of issue with the 4th hop, traffic is still reaching the destination host and returning to the source host. Latency could be caused by a problem with the return route as well. The return route will not be seen in your MTR report, and packets can take completely different routes to and from a particular destination.
In the above example, while there is a large jump in latency between hosts 3 and 4 the latency does not increase unusually in any subsequent hops. From this it is logical to assume that there is some issue with the 4th router.
ICMP rate limiting can also create the appearance of latency, similar to the way that it can create the appearance of packet loss. Consider the following example:
root@localhost:~# mtr --report www.google.com HOST: localhost Loss% Snt Last Avg Best Wrst StDev 1. 63.247.74.43 0.0% 10 0.3 0.6 0.3 1.2 0.3 2. 63.247.64.157 0.0% 10 0.4 1.0 0.4 6.1 1.8 3. 209.51.130.213 0.0% 10 0.8 2.7 0.8 19.0 5.7 4. aix.pr1.atl.google.com 0.0% 10 6.7 6.8 6.7 6.9 0.1 5. 72.14.233.56 0.0% 10 254.2 250.3 230.1 263.4 2.9 6. 209.85.254.247 0.0% 10 39.1 39.4 39.1 39.7 0.2 7. 64.233.174.46 0.0% 10 39.6 40.4 39.4 46.9 2.3 8. gw-in-f147.1e100.net 0.0% 10 39.6 40.5 39.5 46.7 2.2
At first glance, the latency between hops 4 and 5 draws attention. However after the fifth hop, the latency drops drastically. The actual latency measured here is about 40ms. In cases like this, MTR draws attention to an issue which does not affect the service. Consider the latency to the final hop when evaluating an MTR report.
Common MTR Reports
Some networking issues are novel and require escalation to the operators of the upstream networks. However, there are a selection of common MTR reports that describe common networking issues. If you’re experiencing some sort of networking issue and want to diagnose your problem, consider the following examples.
Destination Host Networking Improperly Configured
In the next example, it appears that there is 100% loss to a the destination host because of an incorrectly configured router. At first glance it appears that the packets are not reaching the host but this is not the case.
root@localhost:~# mtr --report www.google.com HOST: localhost Loss% Snt Last Avg Best Wrst StDev 1. 63.247.74.43 0.0% 10 0.3 0.6 0.3 1.2 0.3 2. 63.247.64.157 0.0% 10 0.4 1.0 0.4 6.1 1.8 3. 209.51.130.213 0.0% 10 0.8 2.7 0.8 19.0 5.7 4. aix.pr1.atl.google.com 0.0% 10 6.7 6.8 6.7 6.9 0.1 5. 72.14.233.56 0.0% 10 7.2 8.3 7.1 16.4 2.9 6. 209.85.254.247 0.0% 10 39.1 39.4 39.1 39.7 0.2 7. 64.233.174.46 0.0% 10 39.6 40.4 39.4 46.9 2.3 8. gw-in-f147.1e100.net 100.0 10 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
The traffic does reach the destination host however, the MTR report shows loss because the destination host is not sending a reply. This may be the result of improperly configured networking or firewall (iptables) rules that cause the host to drop ICMP packets.
The way you can tell that the loss is due to a misconfigured host is to look at the hop which shows 100% loss. From previous reports, you see that this is the final hop and that MTR does not try additional hops. While it is difficult to isolate this issue without a baseline measurement, these kinds of errors are quite common.
Residential or Business Router
Oftentimes residential gateways will cause MTR reports to look a little misleading.
% mtr --no-dns --report google.com HOST: deleuze Loss% Snt Last Avg Best Wrst StDev 1. 192.168.1.1 0.0% 10 2.2 2.2 2.0 2.7 0.2 2. ??? 100.0 10 8.6 11.0 8.4 17.8 3.0 3. 68.86.210.126 0.0% 10 9.1 12.1 8.5 24.3 5.2 4. 68.86.208.22 0.0% 10 12.2 15.1 11.7 23.4 4.4 5. 68.85.192.86 0.0% 10 17.2 14.8 13.2 17.2 1.3 6. 68.86.90.25 0.0% 10 14.2 16.4 14.2 20.3 1.9 7. 68.86.86.194 0.0% 10 17.6 16.8 15.5 18.1 0.9 8. 75.149.230.194 0.0% 10 15.0 20.1 15.0 33.8 5.6 9. 72.14.238.232 0.0% 10 15.6 18.7 14.1 32.8 5.9 10. 209.85.241.148 0.0% 10 16.3 16.9 14.7 21.2 2.2 11. 66.249.91.104 0.0% 10 22.2 18.6 14.2 36.0 6.5
Do not be alarmed by the 100% loss reported. This does not indicate that there is a problem. You can see that there is no loss on subsequent hops.
An ISP Router Is Not Configured Properly
Sometimes a router on the route your packet takes is incorrectly configured and your packets may never reach their destination. Consider the following example:
root@localhost:~# mtr --report www.google.com HOST: localhost Loss% Snt Last Avg Best Wrst StDev 1. 63.247.74.43 0.0% 10 0.3 0.6 0.3 1.2 0.3 2. 63.247.64.157 0.0% 10 0.4 1.0 0.4 6.1 1.8 3. 209.51.130.213 0.0% 10 0.8 2.7 0.8 19.0 5.7 4. aix.pr1.atl.google.com 0.0% 10 6.7 6.8 6.7 6.9 0.1 5. ??? 0.0% 10 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6. ??? 0.0% 10 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7. ??? 0.0% 10 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8. ??? 0.0% 10 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9. ??? 0.0% 10 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10. ??? 0.0% 10 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
The question marks appear when there is no additional route information. The following report displays the same issue:
root@localhost:~# mtr --report www.google.com HOST: localhost Loss% Snt Last Avg Best Wrst StDev 1. 63.247.74.43 0.0% 10 0.3 0.6 0.3 1.2 0.3 2. 63.247.64.157 0.0% 10 0.4 1.0 0.4 6.1 1.8 3. 209.51.130.213 0.0% 10 0.8 2.7 0.8 19.0 5.7 4. aix.pr1.atl.google.com 0.0% 10 6.7 6.8 6.7 6.9 0.1 5. 172.16.29.45 0.0% 10 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6. ??? 0.0% 10 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7. ??? 0.0% 10 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8. ??? 0.0% 10 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9. ??? 0.0% 10 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10. ??? 0.0% 10 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Sometimes, a poorly configured router will send packets in a loop. You can see that in the following example:
root@localhost:~# mtr --report www.google.com HOST: localhost Loss% Snt Last Avg Best Wrst StDev 1. 63.247.74.43 0.0% 10 0.3 0.6 0.3 1.2 0.3 2. 63.247.64.157 0.0% 10 0.4 1.0 0.4 6.1 1.8 3. 209.51.130.213 0.0% 10 0.8 2.7 0.8 19.0 5.7 4. aix.pr1.atl.google.com 0.0% 10 6.7 6.8 6.7 6.9 0.1 5. 12.34.56.79 0.0% 10 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6. 12.34.56.78 0.0% 10 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7. 12.34.56.79 0.0% 10 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8. 12.34.56.78 0.0% 10 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9. 12.34.56.79 0.0% 10 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10. 12.34.56.78 0.0% 10 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11. 12.34.56.79 0.0% 10 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12. ??? 0.0% 10 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 13. ??? 0.0% 10 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 14. ??? 0.0% 10 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
All of these reports show that the router at hop 4 is not properly configured. When these situations happen, the only way to resolve the issue is to contact the network administrator’s team of operators at the source host.
ICMP Rate Limiting
ICMP rate limiting can cause apparent packet loss as described below. When there is packet loss to one hop that doesn’t persist to subsequent hops, the loss is caused by ICMP limiting. See the following example:
root@localhost:~# mtr --report www.google.com HOST: localhost Loss% Snt Last Avg Best Wrst StDev 1. 63.247.74.43 0.0% 10 0.3 0.6 0.3 1.2 0.3 2. 63.247.64.157 0.0% 10 0.4 1.0 0.4 6.1 1.8 3. 209.51.130.213 0.0% 10 0.8 2.7 0.8 19.0 5.7 4. aix.pr1.atl.google.com 0.0% 10 6.7 6.8 6.7 6.9 0.1 5. 72.14.233.56 60.0% 10 27.2 25.3 23.1 26.4 2.9 6. 209.85.254.247 0.0% 10 39.1 39.4 39.1 39.7 0.2 7. 64.233.174.46 0.0% 10 39.6 40.4 39.4 46.9 2.3 8. gw-in-f147.1e100.net 0.0% 10 39.6 40.5 39.5 46.7 2.2
In situations like this there is no cause for concern. Rate limiting is a common practice and it reduces congestion to prioritizes more important traffic.
Timeouts
Timeouts can happen for various reasons. Some routers will discard ICMP and no replies will be shown on the output as timeouts (???). Alternatively there may be a problem with the return route:
root@localhost:~# mtr --report www.google.com HOST: localhost Loss% Snt Last Avg Best Wrst StDev 1. 63.247.74.43 0.0% 10 0.3 0.6 0.3 1.2 0.3 2. 63.247.64.157 0.0% 10 0.4 1.0 0.4 6.1 1.8 3. 209.51.130.213 0.0% 10 0.8 2.7 0.8 19.0 5.7 4. aix.pr1.atl.google.com 0.0% 10 6.7 6.8 6.7 6.9 0.1 5. ??? 0.0% 10 7.2 8.3 7.1 16.4 2.9 6. ??? 0.0% 10 39.1 39.4 39.1 39.7 0.2 7. 64.233.174.46 0.0% 10 39.6 40.4 39.4 46.9 2.3 8. gw-in-f147.1e100.net 0.0% 10 39.6 40.5 39.5 46.7 2.2
Timeouts are not necessarily an indication of packet loss. Packets still reach their destination without significant packet loss or latency. Timeouts may be attributable to routers dropping packets for QoS (quality of service) purposes or there may be some issue with return routes causing the timeouts. This is another false positive.
Advanced MTR techniques
Newer versions of MTR are now capable of running in TCP mode on a specified TCP port, compared to the default use of the ICMP (ping) protocol. In some instances network degradation will only affect certain ports or misconfigured firewall rules on a router may block a certain protocol. Running MTR over a certain port can show packet loss where the default ICMP report may not.
Running MTR in TCP mode will require super-user privileges on most machines:
sudo mtr -P 80 -i 0.5 -rw50 example.com sudo mtr -P 22 -i 0.5 -rw50 example.com