Calculating packet loss from ping?Reducing packet loss in tc rate limitingBehavior of ping with partial...

Warnings of R. Chaim Vital

Why is Japan trying to have a better relationship with Iran?

What is this mount with two buttons on side of Vivitar 75-205mm lens?

How could an armless race establish civilization?

Using the ArcGIS 'select by location' tool in ModelBuilder?

If two black hole event horizons overlap (touch) can they ever separate again?

How is this practical and very old scene shot?

Why does the recording about Twin Pines Mall not change the same way the newspapers and photographs change?

Do the 26 richest billionaires own as much wealth as the poorest 3.8 billion people?

How to describe POV characters?

Sacrifice blocking creature before damage is dealt no longer working (MtG Arena)?

Do home values typically rise and fall at a consistent percent?

Sharing referee/AE report online to point out a grievous error in refereeing

Handling a player (unintentionally) stealing the spotlight

Can you actually break an FPGA by programming it wrong?

How can a valley surrounded by mountains be fertile and rainy?

"Vector quantity" --More than two dimensions?

How Do I Know When I am in Private Mode?

I just started should I accept a farewell lunch for a coworker I don't know?

13th chords on guitar

Is there a legal way for US presidents to extend their terms beyond two terms of four years?

Will writing actual numbers instead of writing them with letters affect readership?

How receiver knows the exact frequency in the channel to "listen to"?

Why did NASA wet the road in front of the Space Shuttle crawler?



Calculating packet loss from ping?


Reducing packet loss in tc rate limitingBehavior of ping with partial packet loss on UbuntuPing command results in packet lossHuge packet loss on openwrtKVM network packet loss to guestVMWare vSphere packet lossWhy ping receives another ping command packet?Ping from VRF VLAN interfacePing - big packet size problemsWhy specify packet size during ping test?






.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{ margin-bottom:0;
}







0















I've got an ESXi VM that does command execution on some 700~ devices on our network. It's using Expect, and due to the age of this equipment they have periods of poor performance. These two don't mix well - as the Expect script will have to wait really long to get output before proceeding.



To try to avoid this, our team decided that a ping test should be issued before connecting to the device. If there's packet loss, we'll come back to it later.



The issue we're having is that our ping test looks like this:



loss=`ping -i 0.2 -w 2 $1 | grep "packet loss" | awk '{print $6}'`
loss=${loss%?}

echo "$loss"


10 pings over two seconds - but we get a LOT of 9% Packet Loss responses. For example we usually have 74/700 tests exit preemptively due to packet loss detection. 39/74 of those report 9%, while the rest report in multiples of 10.



Far as we can tell that doesn't really make sense; there are 10 packets being sent...if one is dropped that should be 10% loss. This has been observed infrequently, but it does happen. Is it possible there's something going on in memory that's causing the number 9 to manifest? If these are legitimate instances of packets being lost then it's big news for us.










share|improve this question































    0















    I've got an ESXi VM that does command execution on some 700~ devices on our network. It's using Expect, and due to the age of this equipment they have periods of poor performance. These two don't mix well - as the Expect script will have to wait really long to get output before proceeding.



    To try to avoid this, our team decided that a ping test should be issued before connecting to the device. If there's packet loss, we'll come back to it later.



    The issue we're having is that our ping test looks like this:



    loss=`ping -i 0.2 -w 2 $1 | grep "packet loss" | awk '{print $6}'`
    loss=${loss%?}

    echo "$loss"


    10 pings over two seconds - but we get a LOT of 9% Packet Loss responses. For example we usually have 74/700 tests exit preemptively due to packet loss detection. 39/74 of those report 9%, while the rest report in multiples of 10.



    Far as we can tell that doesn't really make sense; there are 10 packets being sent...if one is dropped that should be 10% loss. This has been observed infrequently, but it does happen. Is it possible there's something going on in memory that's causing the number 9 to manifest? If these are legitimate instances of packets being lost then it's big news for us.










    share|improve this question



























      0












      0








      0








      I've got an ESXi VM that does command execution on some 700~ devices on our network. It's using Expect, and due to the age of this equipment they have periods of poor performance. These two don't mix well - as the Expect script will have to wait really long to get output before proceeding.



      To try to avoid this, our team decided that a ping test should be issued before connecting to the device. If there's packet loss, we'll come back to it later.



      The issue we're having is that our ping test looks like this:



      loss=`ping -i 0.2 -w 2 $1 | grep "packet loss" | awk '{print $6}'`
      loss=${loss%?}

      echo "$loss"


      10 pings over two seconds - but we get a LOT of 9% Packet Loss responses. For example we usually have 74/700 tests exit preemptively due to packet loss detection. 39/74 of those report 9%, while the rest report in multiples of 10.



      Far as we can tell that doesn't really make sense; there are 10 packets being sent...if one is dropped that should be 10% loss. This has been observed infrequently, but it does happen. Is it possible there's something going on in memory that's causing the number 9 to manifest? If these are legitimate instances of packets being lost then it's big news for us.










      share|improve this question
















      I've got an ESXi VM that does command execution on some 700~ devices on our network. It's using Expect, and due to the age of this equipment they have periods of poor performance. These two don't mix well - as the Expect script will have to wait really long to get output before proceeding.



      To try to avoid this, our team decided that a ping test should be issued before connecting to the device. If there's packet loss, we'll come back to it later.



      The issue we're having is that our ping test looks like this:



      loss=`ping -i 0.2 -w 2 $1 | grep "packet loss" | awk '{print $6}'`
      loss=${loss%?}

      echo "$loss"


      10 pings over two seconds - but we get a LOT of 9% Packet Loss responses. For example we usually have 74/700 tests exit preemptively due to packet loss detection. 39/74 of those report 9%, while the rest report in multiples of 10.



      Far as we can tell that doesn't really make sense; there are 10 packets being sent...if one is dropped that should be 10% loss. This has been observed infrequently, but it does happen. Is it possible there's something going on in memory that's causing the number 9 to manifest? If these are legitimate instances of packets being lost then it's big news for us.







      networking ping expect






      share|improve this question















      share|improve this question













      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question








      edited 1 hour ago









      Lucas Ramage

      5251 silver badge12 bronze badges




      5251 silver badge12 bronze badges










      asked 6 hours ago









      KuboMDKuboMD

      2451 silver badge10 bronze badges




      2451 silver badge10 bronze badges






















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          2














          There are several ping versions. Some have the -w option. Some accept it but is undocumented. In some versions of ping, this happens:



          $ ping -i 0.2 -w 2 127.0.0.1
          PING 127.0.0.1 (127.0.0.1): 56 data bytes
          64 bytes from 127.0.0.1: icmp_seq=0 ttl=64 time=0.091 ms
          64 bytes from 127.0.0.1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=0.091 ms
          64 bytes from 127.0.0.1: icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=0.089 ms
          64 bytes from 127.0.0.1: icmp_seq=3 ttl=64 time=0.086 ms
          64 bytes from 127.0.0.1: icmp_seq=4 ttl=64 time=0.088 ms
          64 bytes from 127.0.0.1: icmp_seq=5 ttl=64 time=0.097 ms
          64 bytes from 127.0.0.1: icmp_seq=6 ttl=64 time=0.091 ms
          64 bytes from 127.0.0.1: icmp_seq=7 ttl=64 time=0.095 ms
          64 bytes from 127.0.0.1: icmp_seq=8 ttl=64 time=0.095 ms
          64 bytes from 127.0.0.1: icmp_seq=9 ttl=64 time=0.092 ms
          --- 127.0.0.1 ping statistics ---
          11 packets transmitted, 10 packets received, 9% packet loss
          round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 0.086/0.091/0.097/0.000 ms


          That is: one packet is emitted, the time expire and it is never received back.



          Thus: 1 packet of 11 got lost, that's 9% loss.



          With those ping versions, adding a -c option should solve the issue:



          $ ping -i 0.2 -c 10 -w 5 127.0.0.1 
          PING 127.0.0.1 (127.0.0.1): 56 data bytes
          64 bytes from 127.0.0.1: icmp_seq=0 ttl=64 time=0.127 ms
          64 bytes from 127.0.0.1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=0.096 ms
          64 bytes from 127.0.0.1: icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=0.088 ms
          64 bytes from 127.0.0.1: icmp_seq=3 ttl=64 time=0.084 ms
          64 bytes from 127.0.0.1: icmp_seq=4 ttl=64 time=0.084 ms
          64 bytes from 127.0.0.1: icmp_seq=5 ttl=64 time=0.093 ms
          64 bytes from 127.0.0.1: icmp_seq=6 ttl=64 time=0.089 ms
          64 bytes from 127.0.0.1: icmp_seq=7 ttl=64 time=0.089 ms
          64 bytes from 127.0.0.1: icmp_seq=8 ttl=64 time=0.087 ms
          64 bytes from 127.0.0.1: icmp_seq=9 ttl=64 time=0.094 ms
          --- 127.0.0.1 ping statistics ---
          10 packets transmitted, 10 packets received, 0% packet loss
          round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 0.084/0.093/0.127/0.000 ms


          That means: try packets each 0.2 sec until 10 packets have been received or until a time limit of 5 seconds has elapsed.






          share|improve this answer


























            Your Answer








            StackExchange.ready(function() {
            var channelOptions = {
            tags: "".split(" "),
            id: "106"
            };
            initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

            StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
            // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
            if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
            StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
            createEditor();
            });
            }
            else {
            createEditor();
            }
            });

            function createEditor() {
            StackExchange.prepareEditor({
            heartbeatType: 'answer',
            autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
            convertImagesToLinks: false,
            noModals: true,
            showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
            reputationToPostImages: null,
            bindNavPrevention: true,
            postfix: "",
            imageUploader: {
            brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
            contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
            allowUrls: true
            },
            onDemand: true,
            discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
            ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
            });


            }
            });














            draft saved

            draft discarded


















            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f527094%2fcalculating-packet-loss-from-ping%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown

























            1 Answer
            1






            active

            oldest

            votes








            1 Answer
            1






            active

            oldest

            votes









            active

            oldest

            votes






            active

            oldest

            votes









            2














            There are several ping versions. Some have the -w option. Some accept it but is undocumented. In some versions of ping, this happens:



            $ ping -i 0.2 -w 2 127.0.0.1
            PING 127.0.0.1 (127.0.0.1): 56 data bytes
            64 bytes from 127.0.0.1: icmp_seq=0 ttl=64 time=0.091 ms
            64 bytes from 127.0.0.1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=0.091 ms
            64 bytes from 127.0.0.1: icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=0.089 ms
            64 bytes from 127.0.0.1: icmp_seq=3 ttl=64 time=0.086 ms
            64 bytes from 127.0.0.1: icmp_seq=4 ttl=64 time=0.088 ms
            64 bytes from 127.0.0.1: icmp_seq=5 ttl=64 time=0.097 ms
            64 bytes from 127.0.0.1: icmp_seq=6 ttl=64 time=0.091 ms
            64 bytes from 127.0.0.1: icmp_seq=7 ttl=64 time=0.095 ms
            64 bytes from 127.0.0.1: icmp_seq=8 ttl=64 time=0.095 ms
            64 bytes from 127.0.0.1: icmp_seq=9 ttl=64 time=0.092 ms
            --- 127.0.0.1 ping statistics ---
            11 packets transmitted, 10 packets received, 9% packet loss
            round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 0.086/0.091/0.097/0.000 ms


            That is: one packet is emitted, the time expire and it is never received back.



            Thus: 1 packet of 11 got lost, that's 9% loss.



            With those ping versions, adding a -c option should solve the issue:



            $ ping -i 0.2 -c 10 -w 5 127.0.0.1 
            PING 127.0.0.1 (127.0.0.1): 56 data bytes
            64 bytes from 127.0.0.1: icmp_seq=0 ttl=64 time=0.127 ms
            64 bytes from 127.0.0.1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=0.096 ms
            64 bytes from 127.0.0.1: icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=0.088 ms
            64 bytes from 127.0.0.1: icmp_seq=3 ttl=64 time=0.084 ms
            64 bytes from 127.0.0.1: icmp_seq=4 ttl=64 time=0.084 ms
            64 bytes from 127.0.0.1: icmp_seq=5 ttl=64 time=0.093 ms
            64 bytes from 127.0.0.1: icmp_seq=6 ttl=64 time=0.089 ms
            64 bytes from 127.0.0.1: icmp_seq=7 ttl=64 time=0.089 ms
            64 bytes from 127.0.0.1: icmp_seq=8 ttl=64 time=0.087 ms
            64 bytes from 127.0.0.1: icmp_seq=9 ttl=64 time=0.094 ms
            --- 127.0.0.1 ping statistics ---
            10 packets transmitted, 10 packets received, 0% packet loss
            round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 0.084/0.093/0.127/0.000 ms


            That means: try packets each 0.2 sec until 10 packets have been received or until a time limit of 5 seconds has elapsed.






            share|improve this answer




























              2














              There are several ping versions. Some have the -w option. Some accept it but is undocumented. In some versions of ping, this happens:



              $ ping -i 0.2 -w 2 127.0.0.1
              PING 127.0.0.1 (127.0.0.1): 56 data bytes
              64 bytes from 127.0.0.1: icmp_seq=0 ttl=64 time=0.091 ms
              64 bytes from 127.0.0.1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=0.091 ms
              64 bytes from 127.0.0.1: icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=0.089 ms
              64 bytes from 127.0.0.1: icmp_seq=3 ttl=64 time=0.086 ms
              64 bytes from 127.0.0.1: icmp_seq=4 ttl=64 time=0.088 ms
              64 bytes from 127.0.0.1: icmp_seq=5 ttl=64 time=0.097 ms
              64 bytes from 127.0.0.1: icmp_seq=6 ttl=64 time=0.091 ms
              64 bytes from 127.0.0.1: icmp_seq=7 ttl=64 time=0.095 ms
              64 bytes from 127.0.0.1: icmp_seq=8 ttl=64 time=0.095 ms
              64 bytes from 127.0.0.1: icmp_seq=9 ttl=64 time=0.092 ms
              --- 127.0.0.1 ping statistics ---
              11 packets transmitted, 10 packets received, 9% packet loss
              round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 0.086/0.091/0.097/0.000 ms


              That is: one packet is emitted, the time expire and it is never received back.



              Thus: 1 packet of 11 got lost, that's 9% loss.



              With those ping versions, adding a -c option should solve the issue:



              $ ping -i 0.2 -c 10 -w 5 127.0.0.1 
              PING 127.0.0.1 (127.0.0.1): 56 data bytes
              64 bytes from 127.0.0.1: icmp_seq=0 ttl=64 time=0.127 ms
              64 bytes from 127.0.0.1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=0.096 ms
              64 bytes from 127.0.0.1: icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=0.088 ms
              64 bytes from 127.0.0.1: icmp_seq=3 ttl=64 time=0.084 ms
              64 bytes from 127.0.0.1: icmp_seq=4 ttl=64 time=0.084 ms
              64 bytes from 127.0.0.1: icmp_seq=5 ttl=64 time=0.093 ms
              64 bytes from 127.0.0.1: icmp_seq=6 ttl=64 time=0.089 ms
              64 bytes from 127.0.0.1: icmp_seq=7 ttl=64 time=0.089 ms
              64 bytes from 127.0.0.1: icmp_seq=8 ttl=64 time=0.087 ms
              64 bytes from 127.0.0.1: icmp_seq=9 ttl=64 time=0.094 ms
              --- 127.0.0.1 ping statistics ---
              10 packets transmitted, 10 packets received, 0% packet loss
              round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 0.084/0.093/0.127/0.000 ms


              That means: try packets each 0.2 sec until 10 packets have been received or until a time limit of 5 seconds has elapsed.






              share|improve this answer


























                2












                2








                2







                There are several ping versions. Some have the -w option. Some accept it but is undocumented. In some versions of ping, this happens:



                $ ping -i 0.2 -w 2 127.0.0.1
                PING 127.0.0.1 (127.0.0.1): 56 data bytes
                64 bytes from 127.0.0.1: icmp_seq=0 ttl=64 time=0.091 ms
                64 bytes from 127.0.0.1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=0.091 ms
                64 bytes from 127.0.0.1: icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=0.089 ms
                64 bytes from 127.0.0.1: icmp_seq=3 ttl=64 time=0.086 ms
                64 bytes from 127.0.0.1: icmp_seq=4 ttl=64 time=0.088 ms
                64 bytes from 127.0.0.1: icmp_seq=5 ttl=64 time=0.097 ms
                64 bytes from 127.0.0.1: icmp_seq=6 ttl=64 time=0.091 ms
                64 bytes from 127.0.0.1: icmp_seq=7 ttl=64 time=0.095 ms
                64 bytes from 127.0.0.1: icmp_seq=8 ttl=64 time=0.095 ms
                64 bytes from 127.0.0.1: icmp_seq=9 ttl=64 time=0.092 ms
                --- 127.0.0.1 ping statistics ---
                11 packets transmitted, 10 packets received, 9% packet loss
                round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 0.086/0.091/0.097/0.000 ms


                That is: one packet is emitted, the time expire and it is never received back.



                Thus: 1 packet of 11 got lost, that's 9% loss.



                With those ping versions, adding a -c option should solve the issue:



                $ ping -i 0.2 -c 10 -w 5 127.0.0.1 
                PING 127.0.0.1 (127.0.0.1): 56 data bytes
                64 bytes from 127.0.0.1: icmp_seq=0 ttl=64 time=0.127 ms
                64 bytes from 127.0.0.1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=0.096 ms
                64 bytes from 127.0.0.1: icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=0.088 ms
                64 bytes from 127.0.0.1: icmp_seq=3 ttl=64 time=0.084 ms
                64 bytes from 127.0.0.1: icmp_seq=4 ttl=64 time=0.084 ms
                64 bytes from 127.0.0.1: icmp_seq=5 ttl=64 time=0.093 ms
                64 bytes from 127.0.0.1: icmp_seq=6 ttl=64 time=0.089 ms
                64 bytes from 127.0.0.1: icmp_seq=7 ttl=64 time=0.089 ms
                64 bytes from 127.0.0.1: icmp_seq=8 ttl=64 time=0.087 ms
                64 bytes from 127.0.0.1: icmp_seq=9 ttl=64 time=0.094 ms
                --- 127.0.0.1 ping statistics ---
                10 packets transmitted, 10 packets received, 0% packet loss
                round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 0.084/0.093/0.127/0.000 ms


                That means: try packets each 0.2 sec until 10 packets have been received or until a time limit of 5 seconds has elapsed.






                share|improve this answer













                There are several ping versions. Some have the -w option. Some accept it but is undocumented. In some versions of ping, this happens:



                $ ping -i 0.2 -w 2 127.0.0.1
                PING 127.0.0.1 (127.0.0.1): 56 data bytes
                64 bytes from 127.0.0.1: icmp_seq=0 ttl=64 time=0.091 ms
                64 bytes from 127.0.0.1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=0.091 ms
                64 bytes from 127.0.0.1: icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=0.089 ms
                64 bytes from 127.0.0.1: icmp_seq=3 ttl=64 time=0.086 ms
                64 bytes from 127.0.0.1: icmp_seq=4 ttl=64 time=0.088 ms
                64 bytes from 127.0.0.1: icmp_seq=5 ttl=64 time=0.097 ms
                64 bytes from 127.0.0.1: icmp_seq=6 ttl=64 time=0.091 ms
                64 bytes from 127.0.0.1: icmp_seq=7 ttl=64 time=0.095 ms
                64 bytes from 127.0.0.1: icmp_seq=8 ttl=64 time=0.095 ms
                64 bytes from 127.0.0.1: icmp_seq=9 ttl=64 time=0.092 ms
                --- 127.0.0.1 ping statistics ---
                11 packets transmitted, 10 packets received, 9% packet loss
                round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 0.086/0.091/0.097/0.000 ms


                That is: one packet is emitted, the time expire and it is never received back.



                Thus: 1 packet of 11 got lost, that's 9% loss.



                With those ping versions, adding a -c option should solve the issue:



                $ ping -i 0.2 -c 10 -w 5 127.0.0.1 
                PING 127.0.0.1 (127.0.0.1): 56 data bytes
                64 bytes from 127.0.0.1: icmp_seq=0 ttl=64 time=0.127 ms
                64 bytes from 127.0.0.1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=0.096 ms
                64 bytes from 127.0.0.1: icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=0.088 ms
                64 bytes from 127.0.0.1: icmp_seq=3 ttl=64 time=0.084 ms
                64 bytes from 127.0.0.1: icmp_seq=4 ttl=64 time=0.084 ms
                64 bytes from 127.0.0.1: icmp_seq=5 ttl=64 time=0.093 ms
                64 bytes from 127.0.0.1: icmp_seq=6 ttl=64 time=0.089 ms
                64 bytes from 127.0.0.1: icmp_seq=7 ttl=64 time=0.089 ms
                64 bytes from 127.0.0.1: icmp_seq=8 ttl=64 time=0.087 ms
                64 bytes from 127.0.0.1: icmp_seq=9 ttl=64 time=0.094 ms
                --- 127.0.0.1 ping statistics ---
                10 packets transmitted, 10 packets received, 0% packet loss
                round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 0.084/0.093/0.127/0.000 ms


                That means: try packets each 0.2 sec until 10 packets have been received or until a time limit of 5 seconds has elapsed.







                share|improve this answer












                share|improve this answer



                share|improve this answer










                answered 4 hours ago









                IsaacIsaac

                13.6k1 gold badge22 silver badges59 bronze badges




                13.6k1 gold badge22 silver badges59 bronze badges






























                    draft saved

                    draft discarded




















































                    Thanks for contributing an answer to Unix & Linux Stack Exchange!


                    • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                    But avoid



                    • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                    • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                    To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                    draft saved


                    draft discarded














                    StackExchange.ready(
                    function () {
                    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f527094%2fcalculating-packet-loss-from-ping%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                    }
                    );

                    Post as a guest















                    Required, but never shown





















































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown

































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown







                    Popular posts from this blog

                    Hudson River Historic District Contents Geography History The district today Aesthetics Cultural...

                    The number designs the writing. Feandra Aversely Definition: The act of ingrafting a sprig or shoot of one...

                    Ayherre Geografie Demografie Externe links Navigatiemenu43° 23′ NB, 1° 15′ WL43° 23′ NB, 1°...