TTL expired in transit











up vote
0
down vote

favorite












I bought a server with 4 ip addresses that need to be configured manually




  • yy.zz.159.7/23 (gw yy.zz.156.1)

  • yy.zz.159.8/23 (gw yy.zz.156.1)

  • yy.zz.159.13/23 (gw yy.zz.156.1)


  • xxx.144.29.243 (gw xxx.144.28.1) main ip address


I added a subinterface ifcfg-eth0:1/2/3 for each one and this is my route table :



Kernel IP routing table Destination     Gateway         Genmask        Flags Metric Ref    Use Iface
xxx.144.28.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.254.0 U 0 0 0 eth0
yy.zz.156.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.252.0 U 0 0 0 eth0
169.254.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.0.0 U 1002 0 0 eth0
0.0.0.0 yy.zz.156.1 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 eth0
0.0.0.0 xxx.144.28.1 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 eth0


When i ping on the added ip addresses i get TTL expired in transit message, from my researches i think there is an infinite loop in my route table, can anyone please point out the problem here?










share|improve this question


















  • 1




    Can you make sure the addresses actually show up in ip addr? Although based on the traceroute output for your addreses I would actually guess that the problem is with the provider, not your configuration.
    – grawity
    Nov 15 at 11:27












  • yes i am sure, i wanted to make sure my configuration is correct before coontacting the provider, thank you so much for your reply
    – Mugiwara
    Nov 15 at 11:30















up vote
0
down vote

favorite












I bought a server with 4 ip addresses that need to be configured manually




  • yy.zz.159.7/23 (gw yy.zz.156.1)

  • yy.zz.159.8/23 (gw yy.zz.156.1)

  • yy.zz.159.13/23 (gw yy.zz.156.1)


  • xxx.144.29.243 (gw xxx.144.28.1) main ip address


I added a subinterface ifcfg-eth0:1/2/3 for each one and this is my route table :



Kernel IP routing table Destination     Gateway         Genmask        Flags Metric Ref    Use Iface
xxx.144.28.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.254.0 U 0 0 0 eth0
yy.zz.156.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.252.0 U 0 0 0 eth0
169.254.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.0.0 U 1002 0 0 eth0
0.0.0.0 yy.zz.156.1 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 eth0
0.0.0.0 xxx.144.28.1 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 eth0


When i ping on the added ip addresses i get TTL expired in transit message, from my researches i think there is an infinite loop in my route table, can anyone please point out the problem here?










share|improve this question


















  • 1




    Can you make sure the addresses actually show up in ip addr? Although based on the traceroute output for your addreses I would actually guess that the problem is with the provider, not your configuration.
    – grawity
    Nov 15 at 11:27












  • yes i am sure, i wanted to make sure my configuration is correct before coontacting the provider, thank you so much for your reply
    – Mugiwara
    Nov 15 at 11:30













up vote
0
down vote

favorite









up vote
0
down vote

favorite











I bought a server with 4 ip addresses that need to be configured manually




  • yy.zz.159.7/23 (gw yy.zz.156.1)

  • yy.zz.159.8/23 (gw yy.zz.156.1)

  • yy.zz.159.13/23 (gw yy.zz.156.1)


  • xxx.144.29.243 (gw xxx.144.28.1) main ip address


I added a subinterface ifcfg-eth0:1/2/3 for each one and this is my route table :



Kernel IP routing table Destination     Gateway         Genmask        Flags Metric Ref    Use Iface
xxx.144.28.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.254.0 U 0 0 0 eth0
yy.zz.156.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.252.0 U 0 0 0 eth0
169.254.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.0.0 U 1002 0 0 eth0
0.0.0.0 yy.zz.156.1 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 eth0
0.0.0.0 xxx.144.28.1 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 eth0


When i ping on the added ip addresses i get TTL expired in transit message, from my researches i think there is an infinite loop in my route table, can anyone please point out the problem here?










share|improve this question













I bought a server with 4 ip addresses that need to be configured manually




  • yy.zz.159.7/23 (gw yy.zz.156.1)

  • yy.zz.159.8/23 (gw yy.zz.156.1)

  • yy.zz.159.13/23 (gw yy.zz.156.1)


  • xxx.144.29.243 (gw xxx.144.28.1) main ip address


I added a subinterface ifcfg-eth0:1/2/3 for each one and this is my route table :



Kernel IP routing table Destination     Gateway         Genmask        Flags Metric Ref    Use Iface
xxx.144.28.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.254.0 U 0 0 0 eth0
yy.zz.156.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.252.0 U 0 0 0 eth0
169.254.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.0.0 U 1002 0 0 eth0
0.0.0.0 yy.zz.156.1 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 eth0
0.0.0.0 xxx.144.28.1 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 eth0


When i ping on the added ip addresses i get TTL expired in transit message, from my researches i think there is an infinite loop in my route table, can anyone please point out the problem here?







linux networking debian routing gateway






share|improve this question













share|improve this question











share|improve this question




share|improve this question










asked Nov 15 at 11:02









Mugiwara

1033




1033








  • 1




    Can you make sure the addresses actually show up in ip addr? Although based on the traceroute output for your addreses I would actually guess that the problem is with the provider, not your configuration.
    – grawity
    Nov 15 at 11:27












  • yes i am sure, i wanted to make sure my configuration is correct before coontacting the provider, thank you so much for your reply
    – Mugiwara
    Nov 15 at 11:30














  • 1




    Can you make sure the addresses actually show up in ip addr? Although based on the traceroute output for your addreses I would actually guess that the problem is with the provider, not your configuration.
    – grawity
    Nov 15 at 11:27












  • yes i am sure, i wanted to make sure my configuration is correct before coontacting the provider, thank you so much for your reply
    – Mugiwara
    Nov 15 at 11:30








1




1




Can you make sure the addresses actually show up in ip addr? Although based on the traceroute output for your addreses I would actually guess that the problem is with the provider, not your configuration.
– grawity
Nov 15 at 11:27






Can you make sure the addresses actually show up in ip addr? Although based on the traceroute output for your addreses I would actually guess that the problem is with the provider, not your configuration.
– grawity
Nov 15 at 11:27














yes i am sure, i wanted to make sure my configuration is correct before coontacting the provider, thank you so much for your reply
– Mugiwara
Nov 15 at 11:30




yes i am sure, i wanted to make sure my configuration is correct before coontacting the provider, thank you so much for your reply
– Mugiwara
Nov 15 at 11:30










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
2
down vote



accepted










I guessed your addresses, ran a traceroute (well, mtr) to all four of them, and while it shows a loop, it's ping-ponging between two addresses that look very much like a point-to-point link between two routers. The same loop also happens when trying to ping/traceroute various other addresses from the subnet, so it's probably "normal" for not-yet-assigned addresses at this provider.



From that I would guess that the problem is with your server provider – they don't have the correct routes pointing the extra addresses to your server.





Meanwhile, your own routing table seems normal, and isn't missing anything obvious. Although that's not the whole routing table – there are entries that the obsolete route command doesn't see. If you directly assign an IP address to an interface (such that it shows in ip addr), this creates a hidden /32 route that tells the OS to always consume the packets and this takes priority over regular subnet routes.



So if you have verified that the addresses are in ip addr, the loop generally won't be your fault.





What you should check now is whether you even receive the packets at all. Use a packet capture tool such as tcpdump:



tcpdump -n -i eth0 "icmp"


While it's running try to ping the server's addresses. If you had a loop, tcpdump would show a storm of "ICMP Echo" packets for every single ping attempt. On the other hand, if it doesn't show any echo packets at all, then the problem is with your ISP (i.e. the server hosting company) – they haven't actually routed the addresses to your server correctly.








share|improve this answer























  • You were right, i contacted the provider and now it's working thanks again :D
    – Mugiwara
    Nov 15 at 12:05











Your Answer








StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "3"
};
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',
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
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%2fsuperuser.com%2fquestions%2f1375631%2fttl-expired-in-transit%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes








1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes








up vote
2
down vote



accepted










I guessed your addresses, ran a traceroute (well, mtr) to all four of them, and while it shows a loop, it's ping-ponging between two addresses that look very much like a point-to-point link between two routers. The same loop also happens when trying to ping/traceroute various other addresses from the subnet, so it's probably "normal" for not-yet-assigned addresses at this provider.



From that I would guess that the problem is with your server provider – they don't have the correct routes pointing the extra addresses to your server.





Meanwhile, your own routing table seems normal, and isn't missing anything obvious. Although that's not the whole routing table – there are entries that the obsolete route command doesn't see. If you directly assign an IP address to an interface (such that it shows in ip addr), this creates a hidden /32 route that tells the OS to always consume the packets and this takes priority over regular subnet routes.



So if you have verified that the addresses are in ip addr, the loop generally won't be your fault.





What you should check now is whether you even receive the packets at all. Use a packet capture tool such as tcpdump:



tcpdump -n -i eth0 "icmp"


While it's running try to ping the server's addresses. If you had a loop, tcpdump would show a storm of "ICMP Echo" packets for every single ping attempt. On the other hand, if it doesn't show any echo packets at all, then the problem is with your ISP (i.e. the server hosting company) – they haven't actually routed the addresses to your server correctly.








share|improve this answer























  • You were right, i contacted the provider and now it's working thanks again :D
    – Mugiwara
    Nov 15 at 12:05















up vote
2
down vote



accepted










I guessed your addresses, ran a traceroute (well, mtr) to all four of them, and while it shows a loop, it's ping-ponging between two addresses that look very much like a point-to-point link between two routers. The same loop also happens when trying to ping/traceroute various other addresses from the subnet, so it's probably "normal" for not-yet-assigned addresses at this provider.



From that I would guess that the problem is with your server provider – they don't have the correct routes pointing the extra addresses to your server.





Meanwhile, your own routing table seems normal, and isn't missing anything obvious. Although that's not the whole routing table – there are entries that the obsolete route command doesn't see. If you directly assign an IP address to an interface (such that it shows in ip addr), this creates a hidden /32 route that tells the OS to always consume the packets and this takes priority over regular subnet routes.



So if you have verified that the addresses are in ip addr, the loop generally won't be your fault.





What you should check now is whether you even receive the packets at all. Use a packet capture tool such as tcpdump:



tcpdump -n -i eth0 "icmp"


While it's running try to ping the server's addresses. If you had a loop, tcpdump would show a storm of "ICMP Echo" packets for every single ping attempt. On the other hand, if it doesn't show any echo packets at all, then the problem is with your ISP (i.e. the server hosting company) – they haven't actually routed the addresses to your server correctly.








share|improve this answer























  • You were right, i contacted the provider and now it's working thanks again :D
    – Mugiwara
    Nov 15 at 12:05













up vote
2
down vote



accepted







up vote
2
down vote



accepted






I guessed your addresses, ran a traceroute (well, mtr) to all four of them, and while it shows a loop, it's ping-ponging between two addresses that look very much like a point-to-point link between two routers. The same loop also happens when trying to ping/traceroute various other addresses from the subnet, so it's probably "normal" for not-yet-assigned addresses at this provider.



From that I would guess that the problem is with your server provider – they don't have the correct routes pointing the extra addresses to your server.





Meanwhile, your own routing table seems normal, and isn't missing anything obvious. Although that's not the whole routing table – there are entries that the obsolete route command doesn't see. If you directly assign an IP address to an interface (such that it shows in ip addr), this creates a hidden /32 route that tells the OS to always consume the packets and this takes priority over regular subnet routes.



So if you have verified that the addresses are in ip addr, the loop generally won't be your fault.





What you should check now is whether you even receive the packets at all. Use a packet capture tool such as tcpdump:



tcpdump -n -i eth0 "icmp"


While it's running try to ping the server's addresses. If you had a loop, tcpdump would show a storm of "ICMP Echo" packets for every single ping attempt. On the other hand, if it doesn't show any echo packets at all, then the problem is with your ISP (i.e. the server hosting company) – they haven't actually routed the addresses to your server correctly.








share|improve this answer














I guessed your addresses, ran a traceroute (well, mtr) to all four of them, and while it shows a loop, it's ping-ponging between two addresses that look very much like a point-to-point link between two routers. The same loop also happens when trying to ping/traceroute various other addresses from the subnet, so it's probably "normal" for not-yet-assigned addresses at this provider.



From that I would guess that the problem is with your server provider – they don't have the correct routes pointing the extra addresses to your server.





Meanwhile, your own routing table seems normal, and isn't missing anything obvious. Although that's not the whole routing table – there are entries that the obsolete route command doesn't see. If you directly assign an IP address to an interface (such that it shows in ip addr), this creates a hidden /32 route that tells the OS to always consume the packets and this takes priority over regular subnet routes.



So if you have verified that the addresses are in ip addr, the loop generally won't be your fault.





What you should check now is whether you even receive the packets at all. Use a packet capture tool such as tcpdump:



tcpdump -n -i eth0 "icmp"


While it's running try to ping the server's addresses. If you had a loop, tcpdump would show a storm of "ICMP Echo" packets for every single ping attempt. On the other hand, if it doesn't show any echo packets at all, then the problem is with your ISP (i.e. the server hosting company) – they haven't actually routed the addresses to your server correctly.









share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited Nov 15 at 12:22

























answered Nov 15 at 11:40









grawity

228k35477540




228k35477540












  • You were right, i contacted the provider and now it's working thanks again :D
    – Mugiwara
    Nov 15 at 12:05


















  • You were right, i contacted the provider and now it's working thanks again :D
    – Mugiwara
    Nov 15 at 12:05
















You were right, i contacted the provider and now it's working thanks again :D
– Mugiwara
Nov 15 at 12:05




You were right, i contacted the provider and now it's working thanks again :D
– Mugiwara
Nov 15 at 12:05


















 

draft saved


draft discarded



















































 


draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fsuperuser.com%2fquestions%2f1375631%2fttl-expired-in-transit%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

Plaza Victoria

Puebla de Zaragoza

Musa