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?
linux networking debian routing gateway
add a comment |
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?
linux networking debian routing gateway
1
Can you make sure the addresses actually show up inip addr
? Although based on thetraceroute
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
add a comment |
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?
linux networking debian routing gateway
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
linux networking debian routing gateway
asked Nov 15 at 11:02
Mugiwara
1033
1033
1
Can you make sure the addresses actually show up inip addr
? Although based on thetraceroute
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
add a comment |
1
Can you make sure the addresses actually show up inip addr
? Although based on thetraceroute
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
add a comment |
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.
You were right, i contacted the provider and now it's working thanks again :D
– Mugiwara
Nov 15 at 12:05
add a comment |
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.
You were right, i contacted the provider and now it's working thanks again :D
– Mugiwara
Nov 15 at 12:05
add a comment |
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.
You were right, i contacted the provider and now it's working thanks again :D
– Mugiwara
Nov 15 at 12:05
add a comment |
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.
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.
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
add a comment |
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
add a comment |
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
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
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
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
1
Can you make sure the addresses actually show up in
ip addr
? Although based on thetraceroute
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