Is a scenario possible, where split horizon with poisoned reverse can’t prevent routing circles? E.g., if router A does announce all routes that route over B to B as infinity, B will never route over A to nodes that A routes to over B.

But is there a scenario, where a failing link causes a routing circle, despite all nodes having using split horizon with poisoned reverse? Maybe with multiple routers involved? Or does this always prevent routing circles? Maybe this is trivial, but I couldn’t think of an example right now. Thanks in advance!

1 Answer 1


Consider this:

     | \
   1 |  \1
     |   \
     A -- C 
     |  1

At time t, link between A and D is broken.

A tells B & C that D is unreachable by DA(D) = inf

B computes new route to D through C. DB(D)=CB(C)+DC(D)=1+2=3. B will tell C that D is unreachable by DB(D)=inf (poisoned reverse). B still tells A it has a path to D of cost 3 (split horizon doesn't apply).

A computes new route through B. A tells C that D is now reachable


  • What does DB(D), C(B,C), DC(D) and DB(D) indicate? What is the convention you are using?
    – Deepak
    Commented Feb 9, 2022 at 17:26
  • DB(D) means from D to B begin at D. C(B, C) should be CB(C) (it has been corrected). Commented Feb 10, 2022 at 14:26

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.