How do I create a UDP packet?





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







14















When I perform the following Netcat command and view the packets with Wireshark, it says the UDP packet is malformed.



$ echo "this is a test" | nc -u 127.0.0.1 53


Similarly, using commands like $ echo "this is a test" > /dev/udp/127.0.0.1/53 produce "malformed packet" errors in Wireshark.



Enter image description here



The echo command gets sent/delivered to the Netcat server without errors. But this got me wondering: is it possible to manually construct a proper UDP packet with echo or some other native Unix tool(s)?



I'm using Debian and macOS.










share|improve this question




















  • 10





    According to your screenshot it's not the udp-packet itself which is malformed but its content, as port 53 is used for DNS and your packet doesn't contain a valid DNS request.

    – tkausl
    Nov 23 '18 at 18:17











  • @tkausl you're absolutely right. There are no "malformed" errors when using ports other than 53. Thank you for pointing that out.

    – user322500
    Nov 23 '18 at 18:22






  • 1





    If you aren't using standard protocols you are supposed to use ports in the range 49152 to 65535. Since Linux by default uses the range 32768 to 60999 as ephemeral ports I recommend not choosing those either for non-standard protocols. However 61000 to 65535 are fair game for non-standard protocols. I usually use echo $[61002+RANDOM%4532] to pick a random port number in that range.

    – kasperd
    Nov 23 '18 at 21:21






  • 1





    Don't be logged in as root. You should do most of your activity as a non-root user. If you do stuff as root, you will be back on here asking how to fix your machine, and we won't be able to help (except to recommend a re-install).

    – ctrl-alt-delor
    Nov 24 '18 at 0:18






  • 1





    @tkausl Look what have you lost for not posting your comment as answer....

    – George Vasiliou
    Nov 25 '18 at 20:23


















14















When I perform the following Netcat command and view the packets with Wireshark, it says the UDP packet is malformed.



$ echo "this is a test" | nc -u 127.0.0.1 53


Similarly, using commands like $ echo "this is a test" > /dev/udp/127.0.0.1/53 produce "malformed packet" errors in Wireshark.



Enter image description here



The echo command gets sent/delivered to the Netcat server without errors. But this got me wondering: is it possible to manually construct a proper UDP packet with echo or some other native Unix tool(s)?



I'm using Debian and macOS.










share|improve this question




















  • 10





    According to your screenshot it's not the udp-packet itself which is malformed but its content, as port 53 is used for DNS and your packet doesn't contain a valid DNS request.

    – tkausl
    Nov 23 '18 at 18:17











  • @tkausl you're absolutely right. There are no "malformed" errors when using ports other than 53. Thank you for pointing that out.

    – user322500
    Nov 23 '18 at 18:22






  • 1





    If you aren't using standard protocols you are supposed to use ports in the range 49152 to 65535. Since Linux by default uses the range 32768 to 60999 as ephemeral ports I recommend not choosing those either for non-standard protocols. However 61000 to 65535 are fair game for non-standard protocols. I usually use echo $[61002+RANDOM%4532] to pick a random port number in that range.

    – kasperd
    Nov 23 '18 at 21:21






  • 1





    Don't be logged in as root. You should do most of your activity as a non-root user. If you do stuff as root, you will be back on here asking how to fix your machine, and we won't be able to help (except to recommend a re-install).

    – ctrl-alt-delor
    Nov 24 '18 at 0:18






  • 1





    @tkausl Look what have you lost for not posting your comment as answer....

    – George Vasiliou
    Nov 25 '18 at 20:23














14












14








14


5






When I perform the following Netcat command and view the packets with Wireshark, it says the UDP packet is malformed.



$ echo "this is a test" | nc -u 127.0.0.1 53


Similarly, using commands like $ echo "this is a test" > /dev/udp/127.0.0.1/53 produce "malformed packet" errors in Wireshark.



Enter image description here



The echo command gets sent/delivered to the Netcat server without errors. But this got me wondering: is it possible to manually construct a proper UDP packet with echo or some other native Unix tool(s)?



I'm using Debian and macOS.










share|improve this question
















When I perform the following Netcat command and view the packets with Wireshark, it says the UDP packet is malformed.



$ echo "this is a test" | nc -u 127.0.0.1 53


Similarly, using commands like $ echo "this is a test" > /dev/udp/127.0.0.1/53 produce "malformed packet" errors in Wireshark.



Enter image description here



The echo command gets sent/delivered to the Netcat server without errors. But this got me wondering: is it possible to manually construct a proper UDP packet with echo or some other native Unix tool(s)?



I'm using Debian and macOS.







linux debian osx netcat udp






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited Nov 24 '18 at 9:36









Peter Mortensen

92159




92159










asked Nov 23 '18 at 16:01









user322500user322500

7114




7114








  • 10





    According to your screenshot it's not the udp-packet itself which is malformed but its content, as port 53 is used for DNS and your packet doesn't contain a valid DNS request.

    – tkausl
    Nov 23 '18 at 18:17











  • @tkausl you're absolutely right. There are no "malformed" errors when using ports other than 53. Thank you for pointing that out.

    – user322500
    Nov 23 '18 at 18:22






  • 1





    If you aren't using standard protocols you are supposed to use ports in the range 49152 to 65535. Since Linux by default uses the range 32768 to 60999 as ephemeral ports I recommend not choosing those either for non-standard protocols. However 61000 to 65535 are fair game for non-standard protocols. I usually use echo $[61002+RANDOM%4532] to pick a random port number in that range.

    – kasperd
    Nov 23 '18 at 21:21






  • 1





    Don't be logged in as root. You should do most of your activity as a non-root user. If you do stuff as root, you will be back on here asking how to fix your machine, and we won't be able to help (except to recommend a re-install).

    – ctrl-alt-delor
    Nov 24 '18 at 0:18






  • 1





    @tkausl Look what have you lost for not posting your comment as answer....

    – George Vasiliou
    Nov 25 '18 at 20:23














  • 10





    According to your screenshot it's not the udp-packet itself which is malformed but its content, as port 53 is used for DNS and your packet doesn't contain a valid DNS request.

    – tkausl
    Nov 23 '18 at 18:17











  • @tkausl you're absolutely right. There are no "malformed" errors when using ports other than 53. Thank you for pointing that out.

    – user322500
    Nov 23 '18 at 18:22






  • 1





    If you aren't using standard protocols you are supposed to use ports in the range 49152 to 65535. Since Linux by default uses the range 32768 to 60999 as ephemeral ports I recommend not choosing those either for non-standard protocols. However 61000 to 65535 are fair game for non-standard protocols. I usually use echo $[61002+RANDOM%4532] to pick a random port number in that range.

    – kasperd
    Nov 23 '18 at 21:21






  • 1





    Don't be logged in as root. You should do most of your activity as a non-root user. If you do stuff as root, you will be back on here asking how to fix your machine, and we won't be able to help (except to recommend a re-install).

    – ctrl-alt-delor
    Nov 24 '18 at 0:18






  • 1





    @tkausl Look what have you lost for not posting your comment as answer....

    – George Vasiliou
    Nov 25 '18 at 20:23








10




10





According to your screenshot it's not the udp-packet itself which is malformed but its content, as port 53 is used for DNS and your packet doesn't contain a valid DNS request.

– tkausl
Nov 23 '18 at 18:17





According to your screenshot it's not the udp-packet itself which is malformed but its content, as port 53 is used for DNS and your packet doesn't contain a valid DNS request.

– tkausl
Nov 23 '18 at 18:17













@tkausl you're absolutely right. There are no "malformed" errors when using ports other than 53. Thank you for pointing that out.

– user322500
Nov 23 '18 at 18:22





@tkausl you're absolutely right. There are no "malformed" errors when using ports other than 53. Thank you for pointing that out.

– user322500
Nov 23 '18 at 18:22




1




1





If you aren't using standard protocols you are supposed to use ports in the range 49152 to 65535. Since Linux by default uses the range 32768 to 60999 as ephemeral ports I recommend not choosing those either for non-standard protocols. However 61000 to 65535 are fair game for non-standard protocols. I usually use echo $[61002+RANDOM%4532] to pick a random port number in that range.

– kasperd
Nov 23 '18 at 21:21





If you aren't using standard protocols you are supposed to use ports in the range 49152 to 65535. Since Linux by default uses the range 32768 to 60999 as ephemeral ports I recommend not choosing those either for non-standard protocols. However 61000 to 65535 are fair game for non-standard protocols. I usually use echo $[61002+RANDOM%4532] to pick a random port number in that range.

– kasperd
Nov 23 '18 at 21:21




1




1





Don't be logged in as root. You should do most of your activity as a non-root user. If you do stuff as root, you will be back on here asking how to fix your machine, and we won't be able to help (except to recommend a re-install).

– ctrl-alt-delor
Nov 24 '18 at 0:18





Don't be logged in as root. You should do most of your activity as a non-root user. If you do stuff as root, you will be back on here asking how to fix your machine, and we won't be able to help (except to recommend a re-install).

– ctrl-alt-delor
Nov 24 '18 at 0:18




1




1





@tkausl Look what have you lost for not posting your comment as answer....

– George Vasiliou
Nov 25 '18 at 20:23





@tkausl Look what have you lost for not posting your comment as answer....

– George Vasiliou
Nov 25 '18 at 20:23










3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















41














Your packet is completely valid, from the viewpoint of IP and UDP. If you expand the protocol details for Ethernet/IP/UDP in the lower pane of Wireshark, you will see that the packet is successfully parsed.



However, as it is destined for port 53, Wireshark attempts to parse it as a DNS packet, which it cannot do (since the string "this is a test" is not a valid DNS request per the RFC 1035 spec).



If you follow the specification at that link, you will be able to construct a packet that is valid when parsed as a DNS request. If you send the packet to another port, you'll notice that Wireshark will no longer parse it as a DNS request and will hence not show that warning.






share|improve this answer































    14














    You can send them to Bash special aliases with redirection.



    From Bash manpages:




    /dev/tcp/host/port
    If host is a valid hostname or Internet address, and port is an integer port number or service name, bash attempts to open the
    corresponding TCP socket.



    /dev/udp/host/port
    If host is a valid hostname or Internet address, and port is an integer port number or service name, bash attempts to open the
    corresponding UDP socket.




    This will send a UDP packet to 192.168.2.11 to port 8080:



    echo "This is a test" > /dev/udp/192.168.2.11/8080





    share|improve this answer


























    • Thanks for this answer. I've updated my question. Using your method also produces a "malformed packet" error message, unfortunately.

      – user322500
      Nov 23 '18 at 16:42



















    -1














    There are multiple questions here; the claim of a "malformed packet" may be due to checksum offloading and if so is a false error as it reflects the packet capture not having a complete view--some of the work was instead done on the network hardware. WireShark should have documentation on this.



    Otherwise, various tools (such as socat, nc or netcat, or via extremely similar features in shells such as ksh93 or bash) can take bytes from standard input and dump them into what becomes a UDP packet. Whether this is "proper" depends on the protocol; one could in theory construct and send a DNS or DHCP packet this way, though more often folks use a library or dedicated software that (hopefully) correctly implements the protocol in question, as there is usually a lot more involved than setting a few bits in the body of a packet and sending that out over the wire, notably handling responses, retrying after timeout or error, packet header fields, etc. The protocols are usually very well documented in RFC, or see the "TCP/IP Illustrated" book series by Stevens for even more documentation.



    Specific tools such as nmap do very custom things with packet construction. Otherwise for manual packet construction a programming language is typically used, though again most software will use existing libraries or system services to send out DNS or DHCP or other UDP packets, as those are far less work and far less error prone than manually crafting a raw packet from scratch.






    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%2f483717%2fhow-do-i-create-a-udp-packet%23new-answer', 'question_page');
      }
      );

      Post as a guest















      Required, but never shown

























      3 Answers
      3






      active

      oldest

      votes








      3 Answers
      3






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes









      41














      Your packet is completely valid, from the viewpoint of IP and UDP. If you expand the protocol details for Ethernet/IP/UDP in the lower pane of Wireshark, you will see that the packet is successfully parsed.



      However, as it is destined for port 53, Wireshark attempts to parse it as a DNS packet, which it cannot do (since the string "this is a test" is not a valid DNS request per the RFC 1035 spec).



      If you follow the specification at that link, you will be able to construct a packet that is valid when parsed as a DNS request. If you send the packet to another port, you'll notice that Wireshark will no longer parse it as a DNS request and will hence not show that warning.






      share|improve this answer




























        41














        Your packet is completely valid, from the viewpoint of IP and UDP. If you expand the protocol details for Ethernet/IP/UDP in the lower pane of Wireshark, you will see that the packet is successfully parsed.



        However, as it is destined for port 53, Wireshark attempts to parse it as a DNS packet, which it cannot do (since the string "this is a test" is not a valid DNS request per the RFC 1035 spec).



        If you follow the specification at that link, you will be able to construct a packet that is valid when parsed as a DNS request. If you send the packet to another port, you'll notice that Wireshark will no longer parse it as a DNS request and will hence not show that warning.






        share|improve this answer


























          41












          41








          41







          Your packet is completely valid, from the viewpoint of IP and UDP. If you expand the protocol details for Ethernet/IP/UDP in the lower pane of Wireshark, you will see that the packet is successfully parsed.



          However, as it is destined for port 53, Wireshark attempts to parse it as a DNS packet, which it cannot do (since the string "this is a test" is not a valid DNS request per the RFC 1035 spec).



          If you follow the specification at that link, you will be able to construct a packet that is valid when parsed as a DNS request. If you send the packet to another port, you'll notice that Wireshark will no longer parse it as a DNS request and will hence not show that warning.






          share|improve this answer













          Your packet is completely valid, from the viewpoint of IP and UDP. If you expand the protocol details for Ethernet/IP/UDP in the lower pane of Wireshark, you will see that the packet is successfully parsed.



          However, as it is destined for port 53, Wireshark attempts to parse it as a DNS packet, which it cannot do (since the string "this is a test" is not a valid DNS request per the RFC 1035 spec).



          If you follow the specification at that link, you will be able to construct a packet that is valid when parsed as a DNS request. If you send the packet to another port, you'll notice that Wireshark will no longer parse it as a DNS request and will hence not show that warning.







          share|improve this answer












          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer










          answered Nov 23 '18 at 19:29









          hexafractionhexafraction

          554518




          554518

























              14














              You can send them to Bash special aliases with redirection.



              From Bash manpages:




              /dev/tcp/host/port
              If host is a valid hostname or Internet address, and port is an integer port number or service name, bash attempts to open the
              corresponding TCP socket.



              /dev/udp/host/port
              If host is a valid hostname or Internet address, and port is an integer port number or service name, bash attempts to open the
              corresponding UDP socket.




              This will send a UDP packet to 192.168.2.11 to port 8080:



              echo "This is a test" > /dev/udp/192.168.2.11/8080





              share|improve this answer


























              • Thanks for this answer. I've updated my question. Using your method also produces a "malformed packet" error message, unfortunately.

                – user322500
                Nov 23 '18 at 16:42
















              14














              You can send them to Bash special aliases with redirection.



              From Bash manpages:




              /dev/tcp/host/port
              If host is a valid hostname or Internet address, and port is an integer port number or service name, bash attempts to open the
              corresponding TCP socket.



              /dev/udp/host/port
              If host is a valid hostname or Internet address, and port is an integer port number or service name, bash attempts to open the
              corresponding UDP socket.




              This will send a UDP packet to 192.168.2.11 to port 8080:



              echo "This is a test" > /dev/udp/192.168.2.11/8080





              share|improve this answer


























              • Thanks for this answer. I've updated my question. Using your method also produces a "malformed packet" error message, unfortunately.

                – user322500
                Nov 23 '18 at 16:42














              14












              14








              14







              You can send them to Bash special aliases with redirection.



              From Bash manpages:




              /dev/tcp/host/port
              If host is a valid hostname or Internet address, and port is an integer port number or service name, bash attempts to open the
              corresponding TCP socket.



              /dev/udp/host/port
              If host is a valid hostname or Internet address, and port is an integer port number or service name, bash attempts to open the
              corresponding UDP socket.




              This will send a UDP packet to 192.168.2.11 to port 8080:



              echo "This is a test" > /dev/udp/192.168.2.11/8080





              share|improve this answer















              You can send them to Bash special aliases with redirection.



              From Bash manpages:




              /dev/tcp/host/port
              If host is a valid hostname or Internet address, and port is an integer port number or service name, bash attempts to open the
              corresponding TCP socket.



              /dev/udp/host/port
              If host is a valid hostname or Internet address, and port is an integer port number or service name, bash attempts to open the
              corresponding UDP socket.




              This will send a UDP packet to 192.168.2.11 to port 8080:



              echo "This is a test" > /dev/udp/192.168.2.11/8080






              share|improve this answer














              share|improve this answer



              share|improve this answer








              edited Nov 23 '18 at 20:05









              Peter Mortensen

              92159




              92159










              answered Nov 23 '18 at 16:13









              rAlenrAlen

              845512




              845512













              • Thanks for this answer. I've updated my question. Using your method also produces a "malformed packet" error message, unfortunately.

                – user322500
                Nov 23 '18 at 16:42



















              • Thanks for this answer. I've updated my question. Using your method also produces a "malformed packet" error message, unfortunately.

                – user322500
                Nov 23 '18 at 16:42

















              Thanks for this answer. I've updated my question. Using your method also produces a "malformed packet" error message, unfortunately.

              – user322500
              Nov 23 '18 at 16:42





              Thanks for this answer. I've updated my question. Using your method also produces a "malformed packet" error message, unfortunately.

              – user322500
              Nov 23 '18 at 16:42











              -1














              There are multiple questions here; the claim of a "malformed packet" may be due to checksum offloading and if so is a false error as it reflects the packet capture not having a complete view--some of the work was instead done on the network hardware. WireShark should have documentation on this.



              Otherwise, various tools (such as socat, nc or netcat, or via extremely similar features in shells such as ksh93 or bash) can take bytes from standard input and dump them into what becomes a UDP packet. Whether this is "proper" depends on the protocol; one could in theory construct and send a DNS or DHCP packet this way, though more often folks use a library or dedicated software that (hopefully) correctly implements the protocol in question, as there is usually a lot more involved than setting a few bits in the body of a packet and sending that out over the wire, notably handling responses, retrying after timeout or error, packet header fields, etc. The protocols are usually very well documented in RFC, or see the "TCP/IP Illustrated" book series by Stevens for even more documentation.



              Specific tools such as nmap do very custom things with packet construction. Otherwise for manual packet construction a programming language is typically used, though again most software will use existing libraries or system services to send out DNS or DHCP or other UDP packets, as those are far less work and far less error prone than manually crafting a raw packet from scratch.






              share|improve this answer






























                -1














                There are multiple questions here; the claim of a "malformed packet" may be due to checksum offloading and if so is a false error as it reflects the packet capture not having a complete view--some of the work was instead done on the network hardware. WireShark should have documentation on this.



                Otherwise, various tools (such as socat, nc or netcat, or via extremely similar features in shells such as ksh93 or bash) can take bytes from standard input and dump them into what becomes a UDP packet. Whether this is "proper" depends on the protocol; one could in theory construct and send a DNS or DHCP packet this way, though more often folks use a library or dedicated software that (hopefully) correctly implements the protocol in question, as there is usually a lot more involved than setting a few bits in the body of a packet and sending that out over the wire, notably handling responses, retrying after timeout or error, packet header fields, etc. The protocols are usually very well documented in RFC, or see the "TCP/IP Illustrated" book series by Stevens for even more documentation.



                Specific tools such as nmap do very custom things with packet construction. Otherwise for manual packet construction a programming language is typically used, though again most software will use existing libraries or system services to send out DNS or DHCP or other UDP packets, as those are far less work and far less error prone than manually crafting a raw packet from scratch.






                share|improve this answer




























                  -1












                  -1








                  -1







                  There are multiple questions here; the claim of a "malformed packet" may be due to checksum offloading and if so is a false error as it reflects the packet capture not having a complete view--some of the work was instead done on the network hardware. WireShark should have documentation on this.



                  Otherwise, various tools (such as socat, nc or netcat, or via extremely similar features in shells such as ksh93 or bash) can take bytes from standard input and dump them into what becomes a UDP packet. Whether this is "proper" depends on the protocol; one could in theory construct and send a DNS or DHCP packet this way, though more often folks use a library or dedicated software that (hopefully) correctly implements the protocol in question, as there is usually a lot more involved than setting a few bits in the body of a packet and sending that out over the wire, notably handling responses, retrying after timeout or error, packet header fields, etc. The protocols are usually very well documented in RFC, or see the "TCP/IP Illustrated" book series by Stevens for even more documentation.



                  Specific tools such as nmap do very custom things with packet construction. Otherwise for manual packet construction a programming language is typically used, though again most software will use existing libraries or system services to send out DNS or DHCP or other UDP packets, as those are far less work and far less error prone than manually crafting a raw packet from scratch.






                  share|improve this answer















                  There are multiple questions here; the claim of a "malformed packet" may be due to checksum offloading and if so is a false error as it reflects the packet capture not having a complete view--some of the work was instead done on the network hardware. WireShark should have documentation on this.



                  Otherwise, various tools (such as socat, nc or netcat, or via extremely similar features in shells such as ksh93 or bash) can take bytes from standard input and dump them into what becomes a UDP packet. Whether this is "proper" depends on the protocol; one could in theory construct and send a DNS or DHCP packet this way, though more often folks use a library or dedicated software that (hopefully) correctly implements the protocol in question, as there is usually a lot more involved than setting a few bits in the body of a packet and sending that out over the wire, notably handling responses, retrying after timeout or error, packet header fields, etc. The protocols are usually very well documented in RFC, or see the "TCP/IP Illustrated" book series by Stevens for even more documentation.



                  Specific tools such as nmap do very custom things with packet construction. Otherwise for manual packet construction a programming language is typically used, though again most software will use existing libraries or system services to send out DNS or DHCP or other UDP packets, as those are far less work and far less error prone than manually crafting a raw packet from scratch.







                  share|improve this answer














                  share|improve this answer



                  share|improve this answer








                  edited Nov 24 '18 at 9:12









                  Stéphane Chazelas

                  315k57597955




                  315k57597955










                  answered Nov 23 '18 at 17:47









                  thrigthrig

                  25.4k23257




                  25.4k23257






























                      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%2f483717%2fhow-do-i-create-a-udp-packet%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

                      If I really need a card on my start hand, how many mulligans make sense? [duplicate]

                      Alcedinidae

                      Can an atomic nucleus contain both particles and antiparticles? [duplicate]