routin loop

[Dimitry Haskin]

Stephen,

Those two loops that I originally posted are fixed. But there is
another one:

traceroute -ip6 5f00:3100:8106:3300:0:c0:3302:5a
1 (If 1): [FE80::84B1:7E9D], time = 105 ms.
2 (If 7): [FE80::CC7B:02EC], time = 148 ms.
3 (If 0): [5F02:3000:C020:AE00:201D::0007], time = 132 ms.
4 (If 1): [FE80::84B1:7E9D], time = 253 ms.
5 (If 7): [FE80::CC7B:02EC], time = 308 ms.
6 (If 0): [5F02:3000:C020:AE00:201D::0007], time = 304 ms.
7 (If 1): [FE80::84B1:7E9D], time = 457 ms.
8 (If 7): [FE80::CC7B:02EC], time = 531 ms.


Looking at NIST's stats on the 6bone home page it seems that
very few 6bone nodes are reachable from NIST.

I beleive that the problem stems from the fact that we now
have a combination of rip and static routing on 6bone.  This
is a sure recipe for loops.  A correct model would be to
form a backbone of routers that use only rip to pass reachability
information among themselves and use static routes only to
point to their leaf clients.

Dimitry

> From stuart@pa.dec.com Wed Dec 18 00:50 EST 1996
> Posted-Date: Tue, 17 Dec 1996 21:50:50 -0800 (PST)
> To: dhaskin@BayNetworks.com (Dimitry Haskin)
> Cc: 6bone@isi.edu
> Subject: Re: routin loop 
> Date: Tue, 17 Dec 96 21:47:21 -0800
> From: Stephen Stuart <stuart@pa.dec.com>
> X-Mts: smtp
> Content-Type> : > text> 
> Content-Length: 1910
> 
> > 
> > traceroute -ip6 5f03:1200:9e7d:6000::1c10:30d1
> > 1 [FE80::CC7B:02EC], time = 167 ms.
> > 2 [5F00:6D00:C01F:0700:0001:0060:3E11:6770], time = 164 ms.
> > 3 [FE80::CC7B:02EC], time = 140 ms.
> > 4 [5F00:6D00:C01F:0700:0001:0060:3E11:6770], time = 171 ms.
> 
> I'm hops 1 and 3, and I think I fixed this by directing traffic to LUT
> and IFB through NRL instead of CISCO, but my traceroute now dies at
> IFB:
> 
> % traceroute6 5f03:1200:9e7d:6000::1c10:30d1
> traceroute to 5f03:1200:9e7d:6000::1c10:30d1 (5F03:1200:9E7D:6000::1C10:30D1), 30 hops max, 24 byte packets
>  1  gw.ipv6.pa-x.dec.com (5F00:2100:CC7B::12:0:F842:142C)  2.928 ms  1.952 ms  0.976 ms
>  2  buzzcut.ipv6.nrl.navy.mil (5F00:3000:84FA:5A00::5)  89.744 ms  88.416 ms  87.84 ms
>  3  ::194.105.166.254 (::194.105.166.254)  1403.25 ms  408.544 ms *
>  4  * * *
>  5  * * *
>  6  * * *
>  7  * * *
>  8  * * *
> 
> 
> > traceroute -ip6 5f01:2500:83e1:0:1:40:b40:728b
> > 1 *
> > 2 [FE80::CC7B:02EC], time = 249 ms.
> > 3 [5F02:3000:C020:AE00:201D::0007], time = 207 ms.
> > 4 [FE80::84B1:7E9D], time = 367 ms.
> > 5 [FE80::CC7B:02EC], time = 503 ms.
> > 6: *
> > 7 [FE80::84B1:7E9D], time = 597 ms.
> > 8 [FE80::CC7B:02EC], time = 574 ms.
> > 
> > It seems that we have plenty of these nowadays ;(
> 
> Hops 2, 5, and 8 were me, and I was sending the traffic back to you
> (BAY). Looking at the registry entry for ESNET, it appeared that the
> right thing to do was for me to direct the traffic toward CISCO; I did,
> and:
> 
> % traceroute6 5f01:2500:c680:200:0:800:2bbc:f1ec
> traceroute to 5f01:2500:c680:200:0:800:2bbc:f1ec (5F01:2500:C680:200::800:2BBC:F1EC), 30 hops max, 24 byte packets
>  1  gw.ipv6.pa-x.dec.com (5F00:2100:CC7B::12:0:F842:142C)  1.952 ms  0.976 ms  0.976 ms
>  2  6bone-router.cisco.inner.net (5F00:6D00:C01F:700:1:60:3E11:6770) 4.88 ms *  5.856 ms
>  3  esnet-v6r1.es.net (5F01:2500:C680:200::800:2BBC:F1EC)  16.592 ms  27.328 ms  15.616 ms
> 
> Can you check to see if you still see a loop?
> 
> Stephen