CCNA – Routing Loops Concepts

Routing Loops Concepts

Routing Loops are a risk in networks that utilize an older dynamic routing protocol like RIP. A routing loop is a scenario where data, instead of being routed to its correct destination, is sent from router to router endlessly.

This scenario can be caused by routers not receiving updated routing information quickly enough, and as a result, forwarding packets incorrectly and propagating routing information to neighbor routers incorrectly

When every router in the system has the correct routing information the network is said to be converged. Therefore, it is desirable to use a routing protocol that can converge a network quickly and prevent routing loops.

Typically distance vector routing protocols like RIPv1, RIPv2 and IGRP, do not converge networks as quickly as link state routing protocols like OSPF and ISIS, with the EIGRP routing protocol being the exception.

Count-to-infinity is a RIP routing loop scenario whereby the routes in the routing tables keep increasing their hop-count metric. This is caused by incorrect routing information being propagated on the network.

Distance Vector routing protocols have been designed and improved over the years to minimize the possibility of routing loops. RIP uses the following methods and rules to avoid routing loops and count-to-infinity: split horizon, hold down timers, route poisoning, poison reverse, and TTL values.

Understanding Routing Loops

All routers had consistent knowledge and correct routing tables. The network is said to have converged. For this example, the cost function is hop count, so the cost of each link is 1. Router C is directly connected to network, with a distance of 0. The path of Router A to network is through Router B, with a hop count of 2.

When network fails, Router C detects the failure and stops routing packets out its E0 interface.

However, Routers A and B have not yet received notification of the failure. Router A still believes it can access through Router B. The routing table of Router A still reflects a path to network with a distance of 2.

Because the routing table of Router B indicates a path to network, Router C believes it has a viable path to network through Router B. Router C updates its routing table to reflect a path to network with a hop count of 2, as illustrated in below picture:

Router B receives a new update from Router C (3 hops). Router A receives the new routing table from Router B, detects the modified distance vector to network, and recalculates its own distance vector to as 4, as shown in below picture:

Because Routers A, B, and C conclude that the best path to network is through each other, packets from Router A destined to network continue to bounce between Routers B and C, as illustrated in below picture:

Continuing the example, the invalid updates about network continue to loop. Until some other process can stop the looping, the routers update each other inappropriately, considering that network is down.

This condition, called count-to-infinity, causes the routing protocol to continually increase its metric and route packets back and forth between the devices, despite the fundamental fact that the destination network,, is down. While the routing protocol counts to infinity, the invalid information enables a routing loop to exist, as illustrated in below picture:

Count-to-Infinity Condition

Without countermeasures to stop this process, the distance vector of hop count increments each time the routing update is broadcast to another router. This causes data packets to be sent through the network because of incorrect information in the routing tables. The following sections cover the countermeasures that distance vector routing protocols use to prevent routing loops from running indefinitely.

Troubleshooting Routing Loops with Maximum Metric Settings

IP packets have inherent limits via the Time-To-Live (TTL) value in the IP header. In other words, a router must reduce the TTL field by at least 1 each time it gets the packet. If the TTL value becomes 0, the router discards that packet. However, this does not stop the router from continuing to attempt to send the packet to a network that is down.

To avoid this prolonged problem, distance vector protocols define infinity as some maximum number. This number refers to a routing metric, such as a hop count.

With this approach, the routing protocol permits the routing loop until the metric exceeds its maximum allowed value. Below picture shows this unreachable value as 16 hops. After the metric value exceeds the maximum, network is considered unreachable.

Preventing Routing Loops with Split Horizon

One way to eliminate routing loops and speed up convergence is through the technique called split horizon. The split horizon rule is that sending information about a route back in the direction from which the original update came is never useful. For example:

  • Router B has access to network through Router C. It makes no sense for Router B to announce to Router C that Router B has access to network through Router C.
  • Given that Router B passed the announcement of its route to network to Router A, it makes no sense for Router A to announce its distance from network to Router B.
  • Having no alternative path to network, Router B concludes that network is inaccessible.

Preventing Routing Loops with Route Poisoning

Another operation complementary to split horizon is a technique called route poisoning. Route poisoning attempts to improve convergence time and eliminate routing loops caused by inconsistent updates. With this technique, when a router loses a link, the router advertises the loss of a route to its neighbor device.

Route poisoning enables the receiving router to advertise a route back toward the source with a metric higher than the maximum. The advertisement back seems to violate split horizon, but it lets the router know that the update about the down network was received. The router that received the update also sets a table entry that keeps the network state consistent while other routers gradually converge correctly on the topology change. This mechanism allows the router to learn quickly of the down route and to ignore other updates that might be wrong for the hold-down period. This prevents routing loops.

Below picture illustrates the following example. When network goes down, Router C poisons its link to network by entering a table entry for that link as having infinite cost (that is, being unreachable). By poisoning its route to network, Router C is not susceptible to incorrect updates from neighboring routers, which may still have an outdated entry for network

Route Poisoning

When Router B sees the metric to jump to infinity, it sends an update called a poison reverse to Router C, stating that network is inaccessible, as illustrated in below picture. This is a specific circumstance overriding split horizon, which occurs to make sure that all routers on that segment have received information about the poisoned route.

Poison Reverse

Route Maintenance Using Hold-Down Timers

Hold-down timers prevent regular update messages from inappropriately reinstating a route that might have gone bad. Hold-downs tell routers to hold any changes that might affect routes for some period of time. The hold-down period is usually calculated to be just greater than the time necessary to update the entire network with a routing change.

Hold-down timers perform route maintenance as follows:

  1. When a router receives an update from a neighbor indicating that a previously accessible network is now inaccessible, the router marks the route as inaccessible and starts a hold-down timer.
  2. If an update arrives from a neighboring router with a better metric than originally recorded for the network, the router marks the network as accessible and removes the hold-down timer.
  3. If at any time before the hold-down timer expires, an update is received from a different neighboring router with a poorer metric, the update is ignored. Ignoring an update with a higher metric when a holddown is in effect enables more time for the knowledge of the change to propagate through the entire network.
  4. During the hold-down period, routes appear in the routing table as “possibly down.”

Route Maintenance Using Triggered Updates

In the previous examples, routing loops were caused by erroneous information calculated as a result of inconsistent updates, slow convergence, and timing. If routers wait for their regularly scheduled updates before notifying neighboring routers of network catastrophes, serious problems can occur, such as loops or traffic being dropped.

Normally, new routing tables are sent to neighboring routers on a regular basis. A triggered update is a new routing table that is sent immediately, in response to a change. The detecting router immediately sends an update message to adjacent routers, which, in turn, generate triggered updates notifying their adjacent neighbors of the change. This wave propagates throughout the portion of the network that was using the affected link. Below picture illustrates what takes place when using triggered updates.

Triggered updates would be sufficient with a guarantee that the wave of updates reached every appropriate router immediately. However, two problems exist:

  • Packets containing the update message can be dropped or corrupted by some link in the network.
  • The triggered updates do not happen instantaneously. A router that has not yet received the triggered update can issue a regular update at just the wrong time, causing the bad route to be reinserted in a neighbor that had already received the triggered update.

Coupling triggered updates with holddowns is designed to get around these problems.

Route Maintenance Using Hold-Down Timers with Triggered Updates

Because the hold-down rule says that when a route is invalid, no new route with the same or a higher metric will be accepted for the same destination for some period, the triggered update has time to propagate throughout the network.

The troubleshooting solutions presented in the previous sections work together to prevent routing loops in a more complex network design. As depicted in below picture, the routers have multiple routes to each other. As soon as Router B detects the failure of network, Router B removes its route to that network. Router B sends a trigger update to Routers A and D, poisoning the route to network by indicating an infinite metric to that network.


About Terri

System Administrator @Netpower Datacenter

Posted on 25.09.2014, in Basic & Networking, Technical Articles and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink. Leave a comment.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: