One thing I'd like to add is that testing anything time-related on
emulated/simulated devices may not yield predictable results due to the
internal clock representation in those emulators/simulators.

--
Marko Milivojevic - CCIE #18427 (SP R&S)
Senior CCIE Instructor / Managing Partner - IPexpert


On Sat, Aug 31, 2013 at 5:52 PM, <[email protected]> wrote:

> At the risk of beating a dead horse, I labbed up a few different
> scenarios, and I think I finally got it... I (poorly) put together a post
> about about it here:
>
> http://bippydu.wordpress.com/2013/08/31/rip-holddown-timer/
>
> Thanks guys for your help!
>
> Doug
>
> --------- Original Message --------- Subject: Re: [OSL | CCIE_RS] RIPv2
> Holddown
> From: [email protected]
> Date: 8/31/13 6:29 pm
> To: "Chuck Ryan (chryan)" <[email protected]>
> Cc: "IPexpert Online Study List" <[email protected]>
>
> Chuck,
>
>  The original hop count was not 4294967295, it was 1. That's the metric
> I'm talking about. If the metric of the route immediately goes to infinity
> when the invalid timer ends (which it evidently does), then of course no
> other route could be worse. So what good is a hold down timer that won't
> allow a worse route into the routing table, if there cannot possibly be a
> worse route? It also evidently doesn't let in a better route... So would it
> be better to say that during the hold down period, absolutely no new
> information about the route will be admitted?
>
>  I believe I have it figured out:
>
>  The invalid timer (180 sec) and flush timer (240 sec) are reset each time
> an update arrives.
>
>  At 180 seconds of no updates, the invalid timer ended, the metric went to
> infinity, the route went into holdown, and the holdown timer (180 sec)
> started.
>  -During this stage, ALL updates to the route are ignored (I think, need
> to lab up and verify)
>
>  At 240 seconds, (60 seconds after the invalid timer expired and the hold
> down timer started), the flush timer deleted the route.
>  -At this point, even though the holddown timer never expired, it doesn't
> matter, because the route is deleted, and the new route is allowed.
>
>  Does this sound right? It seems silly that I am spending so much energy
> trying to make sure I understand this silly piece of a protocol hardly
> anybody uses anymore :)
>
>  Doug
>
>
>  --------- Original Message --------- Subject: Re: [OSL | CCIE_RS] RIPv2
> Holddown
>  From: "Chuck Ryan (chryan)" <[email protected]>
>  Date: 8/31/13 5:15 pm
>  To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
>  Cc: "IPexpert Online Study List" <[email protected]>
>
>  Doug,
>
>  Why do you keep saying that the route learned from R5 has a worse metric?
> How is 2 hops worse than 4294967295 ? R3 advertises the route with a metric
> of 4294967295 because the route no longer exists on R3. R5 advertises the
> route with a metric of 2, because it has a valid route to the 
> 10.0.3.0/24network. Right now, R5 has the best (and only) path to that 
> network, which
> is 2 hops away (in the eyes of R4). Nothing else is available, this is why
> it gets installed.
>
>  Now when the loopback on R3 is re-enabled, then YES, R3 has the better
> path and not R5.
>
>  Chuck
>
>
>
>
>  From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
>  Date: Saturday, August 31, 2013 3:46 PM
>  To: Chuck Ryan <[email protected]>
>  Cc: IPexpert Online Study List <[email protected]>
>  Subject: RE: Re: [OSL | CCIE_RS] RIPv2 Holddown
>
>  Chuck,
>
>  Look at the timestamps... At 02:50:55.441, the route first went into
> holdown and had the holddown timer 169 secs left on timer:
>
>  >>>*Mar 2 02:50:55.441: RT: no routes to 10.0.3.0, entering holddown
>  >>>*Mar 2 02:50:55.441: RT: NET-RED 10.0.3.0/24
>  >>>
>  >>>R4#sh ip route 10.0.3.0
>  >>>Routing entry for 10.0.3.0/24
>  >>> Known via "rip", distance 120, metric 4294967295 (inaccessible)
>  >>> Redistributing via rip
>  >>> Last update from 192.168.34.3 on Ethernet0/0, 00:03:13 ago
>  >>> Hold down timer expires in 169 secs
>
>  At only about 60 second later, though, at 02:51:55.857, the route is
> replaced, even though the holddown timer hasn't expired...
>
>  >>>*Mar 2 02:51:45.449: RIP: Update sent via Ethernet1/0
>  >>>R4#sh ip route 10.0.3.0
>  >>>Routing entry for 10.0.3.0/24
>  >>> Known via "rip", distance 120, metric 4294967295 (inaccessible)
>  >>> Redistributing via rip
>  >>> Last update from 192.168.34.3 on Ethernet0/0, 00:03:59 ago
>  >>> Hold down timer expires in 124 secs
>  >>>
>  >>>R4#
>  >>>*Mar 2 02:51:55.453: RT: delete subnet route to 10.0.3.0/24
>  >>>*Mar 2 02:51:55.453: RT: NET-RED 10.0.3.0/24
>  >>>*Mar 2 02:51:55.853: RIP: received v2 update from 192.168.45.5 on
>  >>>Ethernet1/0
>  >>>*Mar 2 02:51:55.853: RT: SET_LAST_RDB for 10.0.3.0/24
>  >>> NEW rdb: via 192.168.45.5
>  >>>*Mar 2 02:51:55.857: RT: add 10.0.3.0/24 via 192.168.45.5, rip metric
>  >>>[120/2]
>  >>>*Mar 2 02:51:55.857: RT: NET-RED 10.0.3.0/24
>  >>>Routing entry for 10.0.3.0/24
>  >>> Known via "rip", distance 120, metric 2
>  >>> Redistributing via rip
>  >>> Last update from 192.168.45.5 on Ethernet1/0, 00:00:08 ago
>  >>> Routing Descriptor Blocks:
>  >>> * 192.168.45.5, from 192.168.45.5, 00:00:08 ago, via Ethernet1/0
>  >>> Route metric is 2, traffic share count is 1
>
>  How can the route be deleted and a new route with a worse metric be
> installed if the holddown timer isn't done?
>
>  --------- Original Message --------- Subject: Re: [OSL | CCIE_RS] RIPv2
> Holddown
>  From: "Chuck Ryan (chryan)" <[email protected]>
>  Date: 8/31/13 2:51 pm
>  To: "Doug Koobs" <[email protected]>
>  Cc: "IPexpert Online Study List" <[email protected]>
>
>  Doug,
>
>
>  R4 did not install the new route to 10.0.3.0/24 that it learned from R5
>  until the previous route from R3 was deleted. See the debugs below.
>
>  R4#
>  *Mar 2 02:51:55.453: RT: delete subnet route to 10.0.3.0/24 <=== this is
>  the old route from R3 that is being deleted
>  *Mar 2 02:51:55.453: RT: NET-RED 10.0.3.0/24
>  *Mar 2 02:51:55.853: RIP: received v2 update from 192.168.45.5 on
>  Ethernet1/0 ><=== new route received from R5
>  *Mar 2 02:51:55.853: RT: SET_LAST_RDB for 10.0.3.0/24
>  NEW rdb: via 192.168.45.5
>  *Mar 2 02:51:55.857: RT: add 10.0.3.0/24 via 192.168.45.5, rip metric
>  [120/2] ><==== metric of 2
>
>
>  Remember, when we are comparing the route learned from R3 with that
>  learned from R5, the R3 metric (4294967295) is the absolute worst compared
>  to that of R5 (2 hops). That R3 metric means the route is not reachable
>  via R3. Once the hold down timer expires, the route is deleted from the
>  routing table, and then the new prefix learned from R5 can be installed.
>
>  Chuck
>
>
>  On 8/30/13 4:24 PM, "Doug Koobs" ><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>  >Chuck,
>  >
>  >Lo2 on R6 was enabled while the route was still in hold down, so it
>  >should not have been used, right? Isn't that the purpose of hold down, to
>  >not allow routes with worse metrics to be installed, thus preventing
>  >loops?
>  >
>  >Does the hold down time apply if the route is coming in from another
>  >source?
>  >
>  >"Chuck Ryan (chryan)" <[email protected]> wrote:
>  >
>  >>Doug,
>  >>
>  >>R4 installed the route to 10.0.3.0/24 via R5 because this network is
> not
>  >>reachable via R3 anymore. It is reachable via R5 in 2 hops, not 1. See
>  >>the
>  >>advertisement here:
>  >>
>  >>R4#
>  >>*Mar 2 02:51:55.453: RT: delete subnet route to 10.0.3.0/24
>  >>*Mar 2 02:51:55.453: RT: NET-RED 10.0.3.0/24
>  >>*Mar 2 02:51:55.853: RIP: received v2 update from 192.168.45.5 on
>  >>Ethernet1/0
>  >>*Mar 2 02:51:55.853: RT: SET_LAST_RDB for 10.0.3.0/24
>  >> NEW rdb: via 192.168.45.5
>  >>*Mar 2 02:51:55.857: RT: add 10.0.3.0/24 via 192.168.45.5, rip metric
>  >>[120/2] <==== metric 120, 2 hops
>  >>
>  >>This is why when both R3 and R6 (Lo2) are up, R4 installs the route
> known
>  >>via R3 only, and not via R5. The path via R3 is reachable in 1 hop, the
>  >>path via R5 is reachable in 2 hops. R3 has the better path based on
> lower
>  >>metric (fewer hops).
>  >>
>  >>The holddown timer worked exactly as expected. The extremely high metric
>  >>given by R3 is because the route is no longer reachable, so it doesn't
>  >>want you to forward traffic to that router anymore. That's by design.
> The
>  >>route will continue to show up with the "show ip route" command until
> the
>  >>hold down timer expires, at which time, it will be removed completely
>  >>from
>  >>the routing table. The "inaccessible" keyword tells the router that this
>  >>network is no longer reachable via R3, so don't send me any traffic for
>  >>this network.
>  >>
>  >>R4#sh ip route 10.0.3.0
>  >>Routing entry for 10.0.3.0/24
>  >> Known via "rip", distance 120, metric 4294967295 (inaccessible)
>  >> Redistributing via rip
>  >> Last update from 192.168.34.3 on Ethernet0/0, 00:03:59 ago
>  >> Hold down timer expires in 124 secs
>  >>
>  >>
>  >>
>  >>When you enabled Lo2 on R6, that's when R4 received an advertisement
> from
>  >>R5 saying that he could reach the 10.0.3.0/24 network in 1 hop, which
> is
>  >>much shorter than 4294967295. R4 then installs the route to 10.0.3.0/24
>  >>with a hop count of 2 (R5, R6), and life is good.
>  >>
>  >>
>  >>Does that help?
>  >>
>  >>Chuck
>  >>
>  >>
>  >>On 8/29/13 5:07 AM, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>  >>
>  >>>I did some experimenting to make sure my understanding of the holddown
>  >>>timer is correct, and evidently it isn't... I thought it's purpose was
>  >>>to
>  >>>prevent a loop from forming when a route isn't updated for 180 seconds
>  >>>(by default) by not accepting updates about the route that have a worse
>  >>>metric.
>  >>>
>  >>>However, I found that when a route goes into holddown, its metric goes
>  >>>to
>  >>>4294967295, so how could there be a worse route?
>  >>>
>  >>>So I set up a small topology to test:
>  >>>
>  >>>Lo1 10.0.3.3
>  >>> Lo2 10.0.3.6
>  >>>
>
>  >>>R3-------------------------R4-----------------------------R5------------
>  >>>--
>  >>>-------------R6
>  >>> 192.168.34.0 192.268.45.0
>  >>>192.168.56.0
>  >>>
>  >>>All router are running RIPv2 in all interfaces, timers are default,
>  >>>autosummary disabled, but on R6, Lo2 is shut down. R4 installs a route
>  >>>to
>  >>>10.0.3.0/24 with metric 1 and next-hop of R3:
>  >>>
>  >>>R4#sh ip route
>  >>>...
>  >>>C 192.168.45.0/24 is directly connected, Ethernet1/0
>  >>>R 192.168.56.0/24 [120/1] via 192.168.45.5, 00:00:02, Ethernet1/0
>  >>> 10.0.0.0/24 is subnetted, 4 subnets
>  >>>R 10.0.3.0 [120/1] via 192.168.34.3, 00:00:00, Ethernet0/0
>  >>>R 10.0.6.0 [120/2] via 192.168.45.5, 00:00:02, Ethernet1/0
>  >>>C 10.0.4.0 is directly connected, Loopback1
>  >>>R 10.0.5.0 [120/1] via 192.168.45.5, 00:00:02, Ethernet1/0
>  >>>C 192.168.34.0/24 is directly connected, Ethernet0/0
>  >>>
>  >>>Now, I enable "passive-interface default" on R3, and wait for the route
>  >>>to go into holddown on R4, which it does in 180 seconds:
>  >>>
>  >>>*Mar 2 02:50:55.437: RT: delete route to 10.0.3.0 via 192.168.34.3, rip
>  >>>metric [120/1]
>  >>>*Mar 2 02:50:55.441: RT: SET_LAST_RDB for 10.0.3.0/24
>  >>> OLD rdb: via 11.13.11.13
>  >>>*Mar 2 02:50:55.441: RT: no routes to 10.0.3.0, entering holddown
>  >>>*Mar 2 02:50:55.441: RT: NET-RED 10.0.3.0/24
>  >>>
>  >>>R4#sh ip route 10.0.3.0
>  >>>Routing entry for 10.0.3.0/24
>  >>> Known via "rip", distance 120, metric 4294967295 (inaccessible)
>  >>> Redistributing via rip
>  >>> Last update from 192.168.34.3 on Ethernet0/0, 00:03:13 ago
>  >>> Hold down timer expires in 169 secs
>  >>>
>  >>>Now I bring up Lo2 (10.0.3.6) on R6, which advertises 10.0.3.0.24 to
> R5.
>  >>>When R5 advertises this route to R4, it does so with a metric of 1,
>  >>>which
>  >>>is worse than the original metric that R3 was advertising.. However, R4
>  >>>still installs the route, even though it is in holddown:
>  >>>
>  >>>*Mar 2 02:51:45.449: RIP: Update sent via Ethernet1/0
>  >>>R4#sh ip route 10.0.3.0
>  >>>Routing entry for 10.0.3.0/24
>  >>> Known via "rip", distance 120, metric 4294967295 (inaccessible)
>  >>> Redistributing via rip
>  >>> Last update from 192.168.34.3 on Ethernet0/0, 00:03:59 ago
>  >>> Hold down timer expires in 124 secs
>  >>>
>  >>>R4#
>  >>>*Mar 2 02:51:55.453: RT: delete subnet route to 10.0.3.0/24
>  >>>*Mar 2 02:51:55.453: RT: NET-RED 10.0.3.0/24
>  >>>*Mar 2 02:51:55.853: RIP: received v2 update from 192.168.45.5 on
>  >>>Ethernet1/0
>  >>>*Mar 2 02:51:55.853: RT: SET_LAST_RDB for 10.0.3.0/24
>  >>> NEW rdb: via 192.168.45.5
>  >>>*Mar 2 02:51:55.857: RT: add 10.0.3.0/24 via 192.168.45.5, rip metric
>  >>>[120/2]
>  >>>*Mar 2 02:51:55.857: RT: NET-RED 10.0.3.0/24
>  >>>Routing entry for 10.0.3.0/24
>  >>> Known via "rip", distance 120, metric 2
>  >>> Redistributing via rip
>  >>> Last update from 192.168.45.5 on Ethernet1/0, 00:00:08 ago
>  >>> Routing Descriptor Blocks:
>  >>> * 192.168.45.5, from 192.168.45.5, 00:00:08 ago, via Ethernet1/0
>  >>> Route metric is 2, traffic share count is 1
>  >>>
>  >>>
>  >>>What am I missing here? It seems the holddown didn't do anything...
>  >>>
>  >>>Doug
>  >>>_______________________________________________
>  >>>For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training,
>  >>>please
>  >>>visit www.ipexpert.com
>  >>>
>  >>>Are you a CCNP or CCIE and looking for a job? Check out
>  >>>www.PlatinumPlacement.com
>  >>>
>  >>>http://onlinestudylist.com/mailman/listinfo/ccie_rs
>  >>
>  _______________________________________________
>  For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please
> visit www.ipexpert.com
>
>  Are you a CCNP or CCIE and looking for a job? Check out
> www.PlatinumPlacement.com
>
>  http://onlinestudylist.com/mailman/listinfo/ccie_rs
> _______________________________________________
> For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please
> visit www.ipexpert.com
>
> Are you a CCNP or CCIE and looking for a job? Check out
> www.PlatinumPlacement.com
>
> http://onlinestudylist.com/mailman/listinfo/ccie_rs
>
_______________________________________________
For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please visit 
www.ipexpert.com

Are you a CCNP or CCIE and looking for a job? Check out 
www.PlatinumPlacement.com

http://onlinestudylist.com/mailman/listinfo/ccie_rs

Reply via email to