Netwatch icmp incoherent status

I have enabled Netwatch icmp using this command on routerOS 7.8:

/tool netwatch add disabled=no host=10.100.24.24 interval=2h10m10s type=icmp

the ip 10.100.24.24 is online, I can ping it with success:

[admin@ServerMK-03] /tool> ping 10.100.24.24
  SEQ HOST                                     SIZE TTL TIME       STATUS                                                                      
    0 10.100.24.24                               56  64 72ms305us 
    1 10.100.24.24                               56  64 72ms550us 
    2 10.100.24.24                               56  64 72ms739us 
    3 10.100.24.24                               56  64 72ms717us 
    4 10.100.24.24                               56  64 72ms490us 
    sent=5 received=5 packet-loss=0% min-rtt=72ms305us avg-rtt=72ms560us max-rtt=72ms739us

but sometimes I got the netwatch status ‘down’ and the strange (for my understanding) situation in image1 (with response count = 10, but status = down)
image1.png
image2.png
I’m missing something obvious?

LP

Perhaps because the last check is too long ago? Why is your check interval more than two hours?

Or the default values for the ICMP check are getting applied. And one of the RTT check is exceeding a “hidden” default. Didn’t test but one idea.

e.g.

ICMP probe options
packet-interval (Default: 50ms) The time between ICMP-request packet send
packet-count (Default: 10) Total count of ICMP packets to send out within a single test
packet-size (Default: 54 (IPv4) or 54 (IPv6)) The total size of the IP ICMP packet
thr-rtt-max (Default: 1s) Fail threshold for rtt-max (a value above thr-max is a probe fail)
thr-rtt-avg (Default: 100ms) Fail threshold for rtt-avg
thr-rtt-stdev (Default: 250ms) Fail threshold for rtt-stdev
thr-rtt-jitter (Default: 1s) Fail threshold for rtt-jitter
thr-loss-percent (Default: 85.0%) Fail threshold for loss-percent
thr-loss-count (Default: 4294967295(max)) Fail threshold for loss-count

AND, at 154ms for rtt-avg … that bigger than the 100ms default. So it should fail – although initially confusing. You can use simple ping check if you don’t care :wink: