NodelistDB

Netmail PING — 1:1/120

Every FTS-4010 PING sent to 1:1/120 (fidonet), with the path each one walked.

← All PING/TRACE nodes Node history for 1:1/120

Routed ping · 2026-10-18 22:59 UTC

No answer

Nothing came back within seven days of sending.

No answer
MSGID
2:5001/100@fidonet 6ad54f61
First hop
2:5020/715@fidonet (rule)
Handed over
2026-10-18 22:59 UTC
Note
no answer within 168h0m0s

Routed ping · 2026-10-04 22:59 UTC

No answer

Nothing came back within seven days of sending.

No answer
MSGID
2:5001/100@fidonet 6ac2da61
First hop
2:5020/715@fidonet (rule)
Handed over
2026-10-04 22:59 UTC
Note
no answer within 168h0m0s

Routed ping · 2026-09-20 22:55 UTC

No answer

Nothing came back within seven days of sending.

No answer
MSGID
2:5001/100@fidonet 6ab0647c
First hop
2:5020/715@fidonet (rule)
Handed over
2026-09-20 22:55 UTC
Note
no answer within 168h0m0s

Routed ping · 2026-09-06 22:49 UTC

Answered in 25m

The robot at 1:3634/12 bounced it back 25m after it left 2:5001/100.

Answered
MSGID
2:5001/100@fidonet 6a9dee0e
First hop
2:5020/715@fidonet (rule)
Handed over
2026-09-06 22:49 UTC
Answered
2026-09-06 23:14 UTC by SBBSecho, 1:3634/12
Robot
SBBSecho 3.11-Linux r3.173 May 23 2020 GCC 7.5.0

Outbound path

The Via chain the robot quoted back: every system the ping passed through on its way out.

2:5020/715→2:292/854→+1h 4m2:292/854→1:229/426→-1h 0m1:229/426
#NodeStampedElapsedSoftware
1 2:5020/715 2026-09-06 22:49 UTC – RNtrack 2.3.0/Lnx/Perl
2 2:292/854 2026-09-07 00:51 local – D'Bridge 4
3 2:292/854 2026-09-06 23:53 UTC +1h 4m O/T-Track+ 2.85
4 1:229/426 2026-09-06 18:53 local – D'Bridge 4
5 1:229/426 2026-09-06 22:53 UTC -1h 0m O/T-Track+ 2.85
Raw Via lines 
2:5020/715 @20260906.224948.UTC RNtrack 2.3.0/Lnx/Perl
2:292/854 @20260907.005107 D'Bridge 4
2:292/854@Ward_Dossche @20260906.235359.UTC O/T-Track+ 2.85
1:229/426 @20260906.185340 D'Bridge 4
1:229/426@fidonet @20260906.225340.UTC O/T-Track+ 2.85

Return path

The answer's own Via chain: the way back from the robot to 2:5001/100, as each relay on it recorded itself. The answer need not come back the way the ping went out, and a relay that stamps no Via line of its own leaves no mark here, so this is the relays' account of the trip rather than a verified route.

1:3634/12→1:229/426→-1m1:229/426→2:292/854→+1h 10m2:292/854
#NodeStampedElapsedSoftware
1 1:3634/12 2026-09-06 22:59 UTC – SBBSecho 3.11-Linux r3.173
2 1:229/426 2026-09-06 18:58 local – D'Bridge 4
3 1:229/426 2026-09-06 22:58 UTC -1m O/T-Track+ 2.85
4 2:292/854 2026-09-07 01:06 local – D'Bridge 4
5 2:292/854 2026-09-07 00:08 UTC +1h 10m O/T-Track+ 2.85
Raw Via lines 
1:3634/12 @20260906.225942.UTC SBBSecho 3.11-Linux r3.173
1:229/426 @20260906.185838 D'Bridge 4
1:229/426@fidonet @20260906.225838.UTC O/T-Track+ 2.85
2:292/854 @20260907.010614 D'Bridge 4
2:292/854@Ward_Dossche @20260907.000859.UTC O/T-Track+ 2.85

Evidence

Replies

Every netmail that came back about a ping to 1:1/120, newest first, as the sending node received it. Pongs and transit notices are matched to the ping they answer.

2026-09-06 23:14 UTC

pong Pong: PING

From SBBSecho, 1:3634/12 · answers 2:5001/100@fidonet 6a9dee0e

Path quoted in this reply

2:5020/715→2:292/854→+1h 4m2:292/854→1:229/426→-1h 0m1:229/426

This reply's own Via lines

  • 1:3634/12 @20260906.225942.UTC SBBSecho 3.11-Linux r3.173
  • 1:229/426 @20260906.185838 D'Bridge 4
  • 1:229/426@fidonet @20260906.225838.UTC O/T-Track+ 2.85
  • 2:292/854 @20260907.010614 D'Bridge 4
  • 2:292/854@Ward_Dossche @20260907.000859.UTC O/T-Track+ 2.85

Software

SBBSecho 3.11-Linux r3.173 May 23 2020 GCC 7.5.0   --- SBBSecho 3.11-Linux