[System] You are a network routing expert. Analyze the routing table, detect issues, and provide step-by-step reasoning. Use the format: <reasoning>...step-by-step analysis...</reasoning><answer>...concise answer...</answer>

[User]
Routing table:
O    49.96.66.132/30 [110/3] via 10.0.199.1, 00:01:12, GigabitEthernet0/0
O    10.46.0.0/24 [110/2] via 10.0.41.1, 00:05:54, GigabitEthernet0/1
C    10.0.134.0/24 is directly connected, GigabitEthernet0/1
O    163.193.207.160/27 [110/4] via 10.0.19.1, 00:03:28, GigabitEthernet0/0
O*IA 10.46.0.0/20 [110/2] via 192.168.58.254, 00:01:24, GigabitEthernet0/0
C    192.168.105.0/24 is directly connected, GigabitEthernet0/0
O    41.57.35.0/25 [110/4] via 10.0.246.1, 00:03:16, GigabitEthernet0/0
O    211.148.17.128/26 [110/5] via 10.0.25.1, 00:04:40, GigabitEthernet0/0

Question: Analyze this routing table for traffic blackholing risks.

[Assistant]
<reasoning>
1. Observation: The routing table contains a summary route 10.46.0.0/20 (O*IA) pointing to 192.168.58.254.
2. Observation: Only 1 specific routes exist within the summary range: 10.46.0.0/24. The vast majority of the 20 address space has no specific routes.
3. Analysis: Traffic destined to any subnet within 10.46.0.0/20 that does not have a more specific route will be forwarded to 192.168.58.254. If 192.168.58.254 is a firewall with a deny-all policy, a router with an ACL blocking traffic, or a next-hop on a failed link, this traffic will be silently dropped.
4. Impact: This creates a routing blackhole. Packets to legitimate but unadvertised subnets within the summary range will be lost. This is particularly dangerous because the route appears valid (next-hop is reachable) but actually discards traffic.
5. Detection: Prefix coverage analysis shows the summary covers far more address space than actually exists in the routing table. The absence of specific routes for most of the summary range indicates a blackhole risk.
6. Recommendation: Either (a) add more specific routes for all subnets within the summary, (b) configure a null0 route explicitly for unused space to avoid silent blackholing, or (c) narrow the summary to exactly match existing subnets. Verify next-hop 192.168.58.254 behavior with `traceroute` and check for ACLs/firewall policies.
</reasoning>
<answer>
CRITICAL: Summary blackhole detected. The route 10.46.0.0/20 (O*IA) covers a large address space but only 1 specific subnets exist within it. Traffic to unadvertised subnets will be forwarded to 192.168.58.254 and likely dropped. Fix: Narrow the summary prefix to exactly cover existing subnets, or add explicit null0 routes for unused portions. Verify 192.168.58.254 is not silently discarding traffic.
</answer>


[System] You are a network routing expert. Analyze the routing table, detect issues, and provide step-by-step reasoning. Use the format: <reasoning>...step-by-step analysis...</reasoning><answer>...concise answer...</answer>

[User]
Routing table:
O    165.2.150.32/30 [110/4] via 10.0.20.1, 00:01:37, GigabitEthernet0/0
O    46.98.16.0/20 [110/5] via 10.0.246.1, 00:03:14, GigabitEthernet0/0
C    10.0.139.0/24 is directly connected, GigabitEthernet0/1
O*IA 10.60.0.0/20 [110/2] via 192.168.117.254, 00:05:57, GigabitEthernet0/0
C    192.168.206.0/24 is directly connected, GigabitEthernet0/0
O    10.60.8.0/24 [110/3] via 10.0.3.1, 00:02:10, GigabitEthernet0/1
O    145.101.200.0/21 [110/4] via 10.0.88.1, 00:01:24, GigabitEthernet0/0
O    184.30.221.0/25 [110/5] via 10.0.32.1, 00:02:21, GigabitEthernet0/0

Question: Does this routing table contain a routing blackhole?

[Assistant]
<reasoning>
1. Observation: The routing table contains a summary route 10.60.0.0/20 (O*IA) pointing to 192.168.117.254.
2. Observation: Only 1 specific routes exist within the summary range: 10.60.8.0/24. The vast majority of the 20 address space has no specific routes.
3. Analysis: Traffic destined to any subnet within 10.60.0.0/20 that does not have a more specific route will be forwarded to 192.168.117.254. If 192.168.117.254 is a firewall with a deny-all policy, a router with an ACL blocking traffic, or a next-hop on a failed link, this traffic will be silently dropped.
4. Impact: This creates a routing blackhole. Packets to legitimate but unadvertised subnets within the summary range will be lost. This is particularly dangerous because the route appears valid (next-hop is reachable) but actually discards traffic.
5. Detection: Prefix coverage analysis shows the summary covers far more address space than actually exists in the routing table. The absence of specific routes for most of the summary range indicates a blackhole risk.
6. Recommendation: Either (a) add more specific routes for all subnets within the summary, (b) configure a null0 route explicitly for unused space to avoid silent blackholing, or (c) narrow the summary to exactly match existing subnets. Verify next-hop 192.168.117.254 behavior with `traceroute` and check for ACLs/firewall policies.
</reasoning>
<answer>
CRITICAL: Summary blackhole detected. The route 10.60.0.0/20 (O*IA) covers a large address space but only 1 specific subnets exist within it. Traffic to unadvertised subnets will be forwarded to 192.168.117.254 and likely dropped. Fix: Narrow the summary prefix to exactly cover existing subnets, or add explicit null0 routes for unused portions. Verify 192.168.117.254 is not silently discarding traffic.
</answer>


[System] You are a network routing expert. Analyze the routing table, detect issues, and provide step-by-step reasoning. Use the format: <reasoning>...step-by-step analysis...</reasoning><answer>...concise answer...</answer>

[User]
Routing table:
C    192.168.104.0/24 is directly connected, GigabitEthernet0/0
C    10.0.78.0/24 is directly connected, GigabitEthernet0/1
S    172.19.0.0/20 [1/0] via 192.168.65.254
O    114.43.140.68/30 [110/4] via 10.0.191.1, 00:05:42, GigabitEthernet0/0
O    172.19.4.0/24 [110/2] via 10.0.237.1, 00:04:35, GigabitEthernet0/1
O    29.163.166.0/24 [110/3] via 10.0.233.1, 00:01:15, GigabitEthernet0/0
O    93.124.17.112/29 [110/5] via 10.0.19.1, 00:05:27, GigabitEthernet0/0
O    106.71.231.128/29 [110/3] via 10.0.60.1, 00:05:33, GigabitEthernet0/0

Question: Identify all potential issues in this routing table and classify them by severity.

[Assistant]
<reasoning>
1. Observation: The routing table contains a summary route 172.19.0.0/20 (S) pointing to 192.168.65.254.
2. Observation: Only 1 specific routes exist within the summary range: 172.19.4.0/24. The vast majority of the 20 address space has no specific routes.
3. Analysis: Traffic destined to any subnet within 172.19.0.0/20 that does not have a more specific route will be forwarded to 192.168.65.254. If 192.168.65.254 is a firewall with a deny-all policy, a router with an ACL blocking traffic, or a next-hop on a failed link, this traffic will be silently dropped.
4. Impact: This creates a routing blackhole. Packets to legitimate but unadvertised subnets within the summary range will be lost. This is particularly dangerous because the route appears valid (next-hop is reachable) but actually discards traffic.
5. Detection: Prefix coverage analysis shows the summary covers far more address space than actually exists in the routing table. The absence of specific routes for most of the summary range indicates a blackhole risk.
6. Recommendation: Either (a) add more specific routes for all subnets within the summary, (b) configure a null0 route explicitly for unused space to avoid silent blackholing, or (c) narrow the summary to exactly match existing subnets. Verify next-hop 192.168.65.254 behavior with `traceroute` and check for ACLs/firewall policies.
</reasoning>
<answer>
CRITICAL: Summary blackhole detected. The route 172.19.0.0/20 (S) covers a large address space but only 1 specific subnets exist within it. Traffic to unadvertised subnets will be forwarded to 192.168.65.254 and likely dropped. Fix: Narrow the summary prefix to exactly cover existing subnets, or add explicit null0 routes for unused portions. Verify 192.168.65.254 is not silently discarding traffic.
</answer>


[System] You are a network routing expert. Analyze the routing table, detect issues, and provide step-by-step reasoning. Use the format: <reasoning>...step-by-step analysis...</reasoning><answer>...concise answer...</answer>

[User]
Routing table:
O*IA 10.189.0.0/16 [110/2] via 192.168.86.254, 00:01:44, GigabitEthernet0/0
C    192.168.57.0/24 is directly connected, GigabitEthernet0/0
O    10.189.26.0/24 [110/4] via 10.0.104.1, 00:02:27, GigabitEthernet0/1
O    50.8.0.0/17 [110/3] via 10.0.144.1, 00:01:20, GigabitEthernet0/0
C    10.0.41.0/24 is directly connected, GigabitEthernet0/1
O    10.189.108.0/24 [110/3] via 10.0.43.1, 00:02:44, GigabitEthernet0/1
O    159.34.164.128/26 [110/4] via 10.0.5.1, 00:01:23, GigabitEthernet0/0
O    110.139.193.188/30 [110/3] via 10.0.150.1, 00:03:19, GigabitEthernet0/0
O    10.189.8.0/24 [110/2] via 10.0.31.1, 00:01:35, GigabitEthernet0/1

Question: What routing issues could cause network instability in this configuration?

[Assistant]
<reasoning>
1. Observation: The routing table contains a summary route 10.189.0.0/16 (O*IA) pointing to 192.168.86.254.
2. Observation: Only 3 specific routes exist within the summary range: 10.189.108.0/24, 10.189.8.0/24, 10.189.26.0/24. The vast majority of the 16 address space has no specific routes.
3. Analysis: Traffic destined to any subnet within 10.189.0.0/16 that does not have a more specific route will be forwarded to 192.168.86.254. If 192.168.86.254 is a firewall with a deny-all policy, a router with an ACL blocking traffic, or a next-hop on a failed link, this traffic will be silently dropped.
4. Impact: This creates a routing blackhole. Packets to legitimate but unadvertised subnets within the summary range will be lost. This is particularly dangerous because the route appears valid (next-hop is reachable) but actually discards traffic.
5. Detection: Prefix coverage analysis shows the summary covers far more address space than actually exists in the routing table. The absence of specific routes for most of the summary range indicates a blackhole risk.
6. Recommendation: Either (a) add more specific routes for all subnets within the summary, (b) configure a null0 route explicitly for unused space to avoid silent blackholing, or (c) narrow the summary to exactly match existing subnets. Verify next-hop 192.168.86.254 behavior with `traceroute` and check for ACLs/firewall policies.
</reasoning>
<answer>
CRITICAL: Summary blackhole detected. The route 10.189.0.0/16 (O*IA) covers a large address space but only 3 specific subnets exist within it. Traffic to unadvertised subnets will be forwarded to 192.168.86.254 and likely dropped. Fix: Narrow the summary prefix to exactly cover existing subnets, or add explicit null0 routes for unused portions. Verify 192.168.86.254 is not silently discarding traffic.
</answer>


[System] You are a network routing expert. Analyze the routing table, detect issues, and provide step-by-step reasoning. Use the format: <reasoning>...step-by-step analysis...</reasoning><answer>...concise answer...</answer>

[User]
Routing table:
O    172.121.8.0/24 [110/3] via 10.0.65.1, 00:02:40, GigabitEthernet0/1
O    45.107.0.0/16 [110/5] via 10.0.128.1, 00:01:46, GigabitEthernet0/0
O    172.121.12.0/24 [110/5] via 10.0.118.1, 00:01:54, GigabitEthernet0/1
O    180.223.49.0/24 [110/3] via 10.0.206.1, 00:05:29, GigabitEthernet0/0
O    11.186.112.0/21 [110/5] via 10.0.79.1, 00:01:27, GigabitEthernet0/0
C    10.0.234.0/24 is directly connected, GigabitEthernet0/1
O*IA 172.121.0.0/20 [110/2] via 192.168.202.254, 00:05:38, GigabitEthernet0/0
C    192.168.116.0/24 is directly connected, GigabitEthernet0/0

Question: What routing issues could cause network instability in this configuration?

[Assistant]
<reasoning>
1. Observation: The routing table contains a summary route 172.121.0.0/20 (O*IA) pointing to 192.168.202.254.
2. Observation: Only 2 specific routes exist within the summary range: 172.121.12.0/24, 172.121.8.0/24. The vast majority of the 20 address space has no specific routes.
3. Analysis: Traffic destined to any subnet within 172.121.0.0/20 that does not have a more specific route will be forwarded to 192.168.202.254. If 192.168.202.254 is a firewall with a deny-all policy, a router with an ACL blocking traffic, or a next-hop on a failed link, this traffic will be silently dropped.
4. Impact: This creates a routing blackhole. Packets to legitimate but unadvertised subnets within the summary range will be lost. This is particularly dangerous because the route appears valid (next-hop is reachable) but actually discards traffic.
5. Detection: Prefix coverage analysis shows the summary covers far more address space than actually exists in the routing table. The absence of specific routes for most of the summary range indicates a blackhole risk.
6. Recommendation: Either (a) add more specific routes for all subnets within the summary, (b) configure a null0 route explicitly for unused space to avoid silent blackholing, or (c) narrow the summary to exactly match existing subnets. Verify next-hop 192.168.202.254 behavior with `traceroute` and check for ACLs/firewall policies.
</reasoning>
<answer>
CRITICAL: Summary blackhole detected. The route 172.121.0.0/20 (O*IA) covers a large address space but only 2 specific subnets exist within it. Traffic to unadvertised subnets will be forwarded to 192.168.202.254 and likely dropped. Fix: Narrow the summary prefix to exactly cover existing subnets, or add explicit null0 routes for unused portions. Verify 192.168.202.254 is not silently discarding traffic.
</answer>


[System] You are a network routing expert. Analyze the routing table, detect issues, and provide step-by-step reasoning. Use the format: <reasoning>...step-by-step analysis...</reasoning><answer>...concise answer...</answer>

[User]
Routing table:
C    10.0.16.0/24 is directly connected, GigabitEthernet0/1
O*IA 172.13.0.0/22 [110/2] via 192.168.19.254, 00:04:17, GigabitEthernet0/0
O    172.13.3.0/24 [110/4] via 10.0.16.1, 00:02:43, GigabitEthernet0/1
O    85.229.117.0/24 [110/2] via 10.0.12.1, 00:01:35, GigabitEthernet0/0
O    20.26.24.0/21 [110/4] via 10.0.214.1, 00:04:17, GigabitEthernet0/0
C    192.168.44.0/24 is directly connected, GigabitEthernet0/0

Question: Analyze this routing table for traffic blackholing risks.

[Assistant]
<reasoning>
1. Observation: The routing table contains a summary route 172.13.0.0/22 (O*IA) pointing to 192.168.19.254.
2. Observation: Only 1 specific routes exist within the summary range: 172.13.3.0/24. The vast majority of the 22 address space has no specific routes.
3. Analysis: Traffic destined to any subnet within 172.13.0.0/22 that does not have a more specific route will be forwarded to 192.168.19.254. If 192.168.19.254 is a firewall with a deny-all policy, a router with an ACL blocking traffic, or a next-hop on a failed link, this traffic will be silently dropped.
4. Impact: This creates a routing blackhole. Packets to legitimate but unadvertised subnets within the summary range will be lost. This is particularly dangerous because the route appears valid (next-hop is reachable) but actually discards traffic.
5. Detection: Prefix coverage analysis shows the summary covers far more address space than actually exists in the routing table. The absence of specific routes for most of the summary range indicates a blackhole risk.
6. Recommendation: Either (a) add more specific routes for all subnets within the summary, (b) configure a null0 route explicitly for unused space to avoid silent blackholing, or (c) narrow the summary to exactly match existing subnets. Verify next-hop 192.168.19.254 behavior with `traceroute` and check for ACLs/firewall policies.
</reasoning>
<answer>
CRITICAL: Summary blackhole detected. The route 172.13.0.0/22 (O*IA) covers a large address space but only 1 specific subnets exist within it. Traffic to unadvertised subnets will be forwarded to 192.168.19.254 and likely dropped. Fix: Narrow the summary prefix to exactly cover existing subnets, or add explicit null0 routes for unused portions. Verify 192.168.19.254 is not silently discarding traffic.
</answer>


[System] You are a network routing expert. Analyze the routing table, detect issues, and provide step-by-step reasoning. Use the format: <reasoning>...step-by-step analysis...</reasoning><answer>...concise answer...</answer>

[User]
Routing table:
O    172.143.1.0/24 [110/3] via 10.0.25.1, 00:03:27, GigabitEthernet0/1
C    10.0.142.0/24 is directly connected, GigabitEthernet0/1
C    192.168.148.0/24 is directly connected, GigabitEthernet0/0
O    115.204.70.0/27 [110/5] via 10.0.64.1, 00:02:22, GigabitEthernet0/0
O    131.195.13.128/25 [110/3] via 10.0.108.1, 00:01:54, GigabitEthernet0/0
O*IA 172.143.0.0/22 [110/2] via 192.168.14.254, 00:04:47, GigabitEthernet0/0
O    172.143.1.0/24 [110/2] via 10.0.137.1, 00:04:17, GigabitEthernet0/1
O    172.143.2.0/24 [110/3] via 10.0.207.1, 00:05:31, GigabitEthernet0/1

Question: What routing issues could cause network instability in this configuration?

[Assistant]
<reasoning>
1. Observation: The routing table contains a summary route 172.143.0.0/22 (O*IA) pointing to 192.168.14.254.
2. Observation: Only 3 specific routes exist within the summary range: 172.143.1.0/24, 172.143.1.0/24, 172.143.2.0/24. The vast majority of the 22 address space has no specific routes.
3. Analysis: Traffic destined to any subnet within 172.143.0.0/22 that does not have a more specific route will be forwarded to 192.168.14.254. If 192.168.14.254 is a firewall with a deny-all policy, a router with an ACL blocking traffic, or a next-hop on a failed link, this traffic will be silently dropped.
4. Impact: This creates a routing blackhole. Packets to legitimate but unadvertised subnets within the summary range will be lost. This is particularly dangerous because the route appears valid (next-hop is reachable) but actually discards traffic.
5. Detection: Prefix coverage analysis shows the summary covers far more address space than actually exists in the routing table. The absence of specific routes for most of the summary range indicates a blackhole risk.
6. Recommendation: Either (a) add more specific routes for all subnets within the summary, (b) configure a null0 route explicitly for unused space to avoid silent blackholing, or (c) narrow the summary to exactly match existing subnets. Verify next-hop 192.168.14.254 behavior with `traceroute` and check for ACLs/firewall policies.
</reasoning>
<answer>
CRITICAL: Summary blackhole detected. The route 172.143.0.0/22 (O*IA) covers a large address space but only 3 specific subnets exist within it. Traffic to unadvertised subnets will be forwarded to 192.168.14.254 and likely dropped. Fix: Narrow the summary prefix to exactly cover existing subnets, or add explicit null0 routes for unused portions. Verify 192.168.14.254 is not silently discarding traffic.
</answer>


[System] You are a network routing expert. Analyze the routing table, detect issues, and provide step-by-step reasoning. Use the format: <reasoning>...step-by-step analysis...</reasoning><answer>...concise answer...</answer>

[User]
Routing table:
O    172.151.7.0/24 [110/4] via 10.0.146.1, 00:05:43, GigabitEthernet0/1
C    192.168.120.0/24 is directly connected, GigabitEthernet0/0
O    84.80.128.0/19 [110/2] via 10.0.138.1, 00:01:36, GigabitEthernet0/0
O    144.123.118.0/23 [110/5] via 10.0.252.1, 00:03:46, GigabitEthernet0/0
S    172.151.0.0/20 [1/0] via 192.168.41.254
O    172.151.15.0/24 [110/2] via 10.0.247.1, 00:03:29, GigabitEthernet0/1
C    10.0.163.0/24 is directly connected, GigabitEthernet0/1
O    4.42.96.0/23 [110/4] via 10.0.62.1, 00:05:53, GigabitEthernet0/0

Question: What routing issues could cause network instability in this configuration?

[Assistant]
<reasoning>
1. Observation: The routing table contains a summary route 172.151.0.0/20 (S) pointing to 192.168.41.254.
2. Observation: Only 2 specific routes exist within the summary range: 172.151.15.0/24, 172.151.7.0/24. The vast majority of the 20 address space has no specific routes.
3. Analysis: Traffic destined to any subnet within 172.151.0.0/20 that does not have a more specific route will be forwarded to 192.168.41.254. If 192.168.41.254 is a firewall with a deny-all policy, a router with an ACL blocking traffic, or a next-hop on a failed link, this traffic will be silently dropped.
4. Impact: This creates a routing blackhole. Packets to legitimate but unadvertised subnets within the summary range will be lost. This is particularly dangerous because the route appears valid (next-hop is reachable) but actually discards traffic.
5. Detection: Prefix coverage analysis shows the summary covers far more address space than actually exists in the routing table. The absence of specific routes for most of the summary range indicates a blackhole risk.
6. Recommendation: Either (a) add more specific routes for all subnets within the summary, (b) configure a null0 route explicitly for unused space to avoid silent blackholing, or (c) narrow the summary to exactly match existing subnets. Verify next-hop 192.168.41.254 behavior with `traceroute` and check for ACLs/firewall policies.
</reasoning>
<answer>
CRITICAL: Summary blackhole detected. The route 172.151.0.0/20 (S) covers a large address space but only 2 specific subnets exist within it. Traffic to unadvertised subnets will be forwarded to 192.168.41.254 and likely dropped. Fix: Narrow the summary prefix to exactly cover existing subnets, or add explicit null0 routes for unused portions. Verify 192.168.41.254 is not silently discarding traffic.
</answer>


[System] You are a network routing expert. Analyze the routing table, detect issues, and provide step-by-step reasoning. Use the format: <reasoning>...step-by-step analysis...</reasoning><answer>...concise answer...</answer>

[User]
Routing table:
C    10.0.20.0/24 is directly connected, GigabitEthernet0/1
O    10.200.81.0/24 [110/4] via 10.0.126.1, 00:04:12, GigabitEthernet0/1
C    192.168.70.0/24 is directly connected, GigabitEthernet0/0
O    111.217.144.0/21 [110/2] via 10.0.214.1, 00:03:10, GigabitEthernet0/0
O    185.235.131.64/26 [110/4] via 10.0.8.1, 00:01:21, GigabitEthernet0/0
O    18.0.160.0/24 [110/4] via 10.0.3.1, 00:02:16, GigabitEthernet0/0
O*IA 10.200.0.0/16 [110/2] via 192.168.253.254, 00:05:11, GigabitEthernet0/0
O    194.101.56.0/22 [110/5] via 10.0.115.1, 00:05:53, GigabitEthernet0/0
O    10.200.255.0/24 [110/4] via 10.0.174.1, 00:02:10, GigabitEthernet0/1

Question: What routing issues could cause network instability in this configuration?

[Assistant]
<reasoning>
1. Observation: The routing table contains a summary route 10.200.0.0/16 (O*IA) pointing to 192.168.253.254.
2. Observation: Only 2 specific routes exist within the summary range: 10.200.255.0/24, 10.200.81.0/24. The vast majority of the 16 address space has no specific routes.
3. Analysis: Traffic destined to any subnet within 10.200.0.0/16 that does not have a more specific route will be forwarded to 192.168.253.254. If 192.168.253.254 is a firewall with a deny-all policy, a router with an ACL blocking traffic, or a next-hop on a failed link, this traffic will be silently dropped.
4. Impact: This creates a routing blackhole. Packets to legitimate but unadvertised subnets within the summary range will be lost. This is particularly dangerous because the route appears valid (next-hop is reachable) but actually discards traffic.
5. Detection: Prefix coverage analysis shows the summary covers far more address space than actually exists in the routing table. The absence of specific routes for most of the summary range indicates a blackhole risk.
6. Recommendation: Either (a) add more specific routes for all subnets within the summary, (b) configure a null0 route explicitly for unused space to avoid silent blackholing, or (c) narrow the summary to exactly match existing subnets. Verify next-hop 192.168.253.254 behavior with `traceroute` and check for ACLs/firewall policies.
</reasoning>
<answer>
CRITICAL: Summary blackhole detected. The route 10.200.0.0/16 (O*IA) covers a large address space but only 2 specific subnets exist within it. Traffic to unadvertised subnets will be forwarded to 192.168.253.254 and likely dropped. Fix: Narrow the summary prefix to exactly cover existing subnets, or add explicit null0 routes for unused portions. Verify 192.168.253.254 is not silently discarding traffic.
</answer>


[System] You are a network routing expert. Analyze the routing table, detect issues, and provide step-by-step reasoning. Use the format: <reasoning>...step-by-step analysis...</reasoning><answer>...concise answer...</answer>

[User]
Routing table:
O    157.40.0.0/18 [110/2] via 10.0.47.1, 00:02:18, GigabitEthernet0/0
S    172.76.0.0/22 [1/0] via 192.168.100.254
O    162.5.192.0/20 [110/2] via 10.0.183.1, 00:02:42, GigabitEthernet0/0
O    172.76.1.0/24 [110/5] via 10.0.73.1, 00:01:54, GigabitEthernet0/1
C    10.0.133.0/24 is directly connected, GigabitEthernet0/1
O    172.76.3.0/24 [110/2] via 10.0.88.1, 00:02:49, GigabitEthernet0/1
O    172.76.3.0/24 [110/2] via 10.0.173.1, 00:03:17, GigabitEthernet0/1
C    192.168.187.0/24 is directly connected, GigabitEthernet0/0

Question: Identify all potential issues in this routing table and classify them by severity.

[Assistant]
<reasoning>
1. Observation: The routing table contains a summary route 172.76.0.0/22 (S) pointing to 192.168.100.254.
2. Observation: Only 3 specific routes exist within the summary range: 172.76.1.0/24, 172.76.3.0/24, 172.76.3.0/24. The vast majority of the 22 address space has no specific routes.
3. Analysis: Traffic destined to any subnet within 172.76.0.0/22 that does not have a more specific route will be forwarded to 192.168.100.254. If 192.168.100.254 is a firewall with a deny-all policy, a router with an ACL blocking traffic, or a next-hop on a failed link, this traffic will be silently dropped.
4. Impact: This creates a routing blackhole. Packets to legitimate but unadvertised subnets within the summary range will be lost. This is particularly dangerous because the route appears valid (next-hop is reachable) but actually discards traffic.
5. Detection: Prefix coverage analysis shows the summary covers far more address space than actually exists in the routing table. The absence of specific routes for most of the summary range indicates a blackhole risk.
6. Recommendation: Either (a) add more specific routes for all subnets within the summary, (b) configure a null0 route explicitly for unused space to avoid silent blackholing, or (c) narrow the summary to exactly match existing subnets. Verify next-hop 192.168.100.254 behavior with `traceroute` and check for ACLs/firewall policies.
</reasoning>
<answer>
CRITICAL: Summary blackhole detected. The route 172.76.0.0/22 (S) covers a large address space but only 3 specific subnets exist within it. Traffic to unadvertised subnets will be forwarded to 192.168.100.254 and likely dropped. Fix: Narrow the summary prefix to exactly cover existing subnets, or add explicit null0 routes for unused portions. Verify 192.168.100.254 is not silently discarding traffic.
</answer>


[System] You are a network routing expert. Analyze the routing table, detect issues, and provide step-by-step reasoning. Use the format: <reasoning>...step-by-step analysis...</reasoning><answer>...concise answer...</answer>

[User]
Routing table:
O    81.73.128.0/18 [110/2] via 10.0.54.1, 00:01:45, GigabitEthernet0/0
O    182.13.221.128/26 [110/5] via 10.0.204.1, 00:04:12, GigabitEthernet0/0
C    10.0.117.0/24 is directly connected, GigabitEthernet0/1
O    91.227.144.0/22 [110/5] via 10.0.39.1, 00:03:47, GigabitEthernet0/0
O    172.120.0.0/24 [110/2] via 10.0.103.1, 00:02:27, GigabitEthernet0/1
C    192.168.32.0/24 is directly connected, GigabitEthernet0/0
O    33.47.224.0/22 [110/2] via 10.0.144.1, 00:01:57, GigabitEthernet0/0
O    172.120.2.0/24 [110/3] via 10.0.219.1, 00:01:41, GigabitEthernet0/1
S    172.120.0.0/22 [1/0] via 192.168.239.254

Question: Does this routing table contain a routing blackhole?

[Assistant]
<reasoning>
1. Observation: The routing table contains a summary route 172.120.0.0/22 (S) pointing to 192.168.239.254.
2. Observation: Only 2 specific routes exist within the summary range: 172.120.2.0/24, 172.120.0.0/24. The vast majority of the 22 address space has no specific routes.
3. Analysis: Traffic destined to any subnet within 172.120.0.0/22 that does not have a more specific route will be forwarded to 192.168.239.254. If 192.168.239.254 is a firewall with a deny-all policy, a router with an ACL blocking traffic, or a next-hop on a failed link, this traffic will be silently dropped.
4. Impact: This creates a routing blackhole. Packets to legitimate but unadvertised subnets within the summary range will be lost. This is particularly dangerous because the route appears valid (next-hop is reachable) but actually discards traffic.
5. Detection: Prefix coverage analysis shows the summary covers far more address space than actually exists in the routing table. The absence of specific routes for most of the summary range indicates a blackhole risk.
6. Recommendation: Either (a) add more specific routes for all subnets within the summary, (b) configure a null0 route explicitly for unused space to avoid silent blackholing, or (c) narrow the summary to exactly match existing subnets. Verify next-hop 192.168.239.254 behavior with `traceroute` and check for ACLs/firewall policies.
</reasoning>
<answer>
CRITICAL: Summary blackhole detected. The route 172.120.0.0/22 (S) covers a large address space but only 2 specific subnets exist within it. Traffic to unadvertised subnets will be forwarded to 192.168.239.254 and likely dropped. Fix: Narrow the summary prefix to exactly cover existing subnets, or add explicit null0 routes for unused portions. Verify 192.168.239.254 is not silently discarding traffic.
</answer>


[System] You are a network routing expert. Analyze the routing table, detect issues, and provide step-by-step reasoning. Use the format: <reasoning>...step-by-step analysis...</reasoning><answer>...concise answer...</answer>

[User]
Routing table:
O    10.155.1.0/24 [110/4] via 10.0.176.1, 00:04:49, GigabitEthernet0/1
O*IA 10.155.0.0/22 [110/2] via 192.168.166.254, 00:03:24, GigabitEthernet0/0
O    30.133.128.0/18 [110/3] via 10.0.36.1, 00:01:43, GigabitEthernet0/0
O    107.16.200.48/29 [110/4] via 10.0.219.1, 00:02:49, GigabitEthernet0/0
C    10.0.168.0/24 is directly connected, GigabitEthernet0/1
C    192.168.248.0/24 is directly connected, GigabitEthernet0/0

Question: Analyze this routing table for traffic blackholing risks.

[Assistant]
<reasoning>
1. Observation: The routing table contains a summary route 10.155.0.0/22 (O*IA) pointing to 192.168.166.254.
2. Observation: Only 1 specific routes exist within the summary range: 10.155.1.0/24. The vast majority of the 22 address space has no specific routes.
3. Analysis: Traffic destined to any subnet within 10.155.0.0/22 that does not have a more specific route will be forwarded to 192.168.166.254. If 192.168.166.254 is a firewall with a deny-all policy, a router with an ACL blocking traffic, or a next-hop on a failed link, this traffic will be silently dropped.
4. Impact: This creates a routing blackhole. Packets to legitimate but unadvertised subnets within the summary range will be lost. This is particularly dangerous because the route appears valid (next-hop is reachable) but actually discards traffic.
5. Detection: Prefix coverage analysis shows the summary covers far more address space than actually exists in the routing table. The absence of specific routes for most of the summary range indicates a blackhole risk.
6. Recommendation: Either (a) add more specific routes for all subnets within the summary, (b) configure a null0 route explicitly for unused space to avoid silent blackholing, or (c) narrow the summary to exactly match existing subnets. Verify next-hop 192.168.166.254 behavior with `traceroute` and check for ACLs/firewall policies.
</reasoning>
<answer>
CRITICAL: Summary blackhole detected. The route 10.155.0.0/22 (O*IA) covers a large address space but only 1 specific subnets exist within it. Traffic to unadvertised subnets will be forwarded to 192.168.166.254 and likely dropped. Fix: Narrow the summary prefix to exactly cover existing subnets, or add explicit null0 routes for unused portions. Verify 192.168.166.254 is not silently discarding traffic.
</answer>


[System] You are a network routing expert. Analyze the routing table, detect issues, and provide step-by-step reasoning. Use the format: <reasoning>...step-by-step analysis...</reasoning><answer>...concise answer...</answer>

[User]
Routing table:
O    103.231.249.216/29 [110/5] via 10.0.112.1, 00:04:25, GigabitEthernet0/0
C    10.0.92.0/24 is directly connected, GigabitEthernet0/1
O    10.61.241.0/24 [110/2] via 10.0.158.1, 00:03:19, GigabitEthernet0/1
O    10.61.130.0/24 [110/3] via 10.0.107.1, 00:02:55, GigabitEthernet0/1
C    192.168.192.0/24 is directly connected, GigabitEthernet0/0
O    10.61.43.0/24 [110/3] via 10.0.10.1, 00:05:10, GigabitEthernet0/1
O    96.1.214.128/25 [110/5] via 10.0.147.1, 00:04:36, GigabitEthernet0/0
O    158.199.185.0/24 [110/2] via 10.0.247.1, 00:04:13, GigabitEthernet0/0
O    175.212.81.224/27 [110/2] via 10.0.212.1, 00:02:18, GigabitEthernet0/0
S    10.61.0.0/16 [1/0] via 192.168.81.254

Question: Analyze this routing table for traffic blackholing risks.

[Assistant]
<reasoning>
1. Observation: The routing table contains a summary route 10.61.0.0/16 (S) pointing to 192.168.81.254.
2. Observation: Only 3 specific routes exist within the summary range: 10.61.130.0/24, 10.61.241.0/24, 10.61.43.0/24. The vast majority of the 16 address space has no specific routes.
3. Analysis: Traffic destined to any subnet within 10.61.0.0/16 that does not have a more specific route will be forwarded to 192.168.81.254. If 192.168.81.254 is a firewall with a deny-all policy, a router with an ACL blocking traffic, or a next-hop on a failed link, this traffic will be silently dropped.
4. Impact: This creates a routing blackhole. Packets to legitimate but unadvertised subnets within the summary range will be lost. This is particularly dangerous because the route appears valid (next-hop is reachable) but actually discards traffic.
5. Detection: Prefix coverage analysis shows the summary covers far more address space than actually exists in the routing table. The absence of specific routes for most of the summary range indicates a blackhole risk.
6. Recommendation: Either (a) add more specific routes for all subnets within the summary, (b) configure a null0 route explicitly for unused space to avoid silent blackholing, or (c) narrow the summary to exactly match existing subnets. Verify next-hop 192.168.81.254 behavior with `traceroute` and check for ACLs/firewall policies.
</reasoning>
<answer>
CRITICAL: Summary blackhole detected. The route 10.61.0.0/16 (S) covers a large address space but only 3 specific subnets exist within it. Traffic to unadvertised subnets will be forwarded to 192.168.81.254 and likely dropped. Fix: Narrow the summary prefix to exactly cover existing subnets, or add explicit null0 routes for unused portions. Verify 192.168.81.254 is not silently discarding traffic.
</answer>


[System] You are a network routing expert. Analyze the routing table, detect issues, and provide step-by-step reasoning. Use the format: <reasoning>...step-by-step analysis...</reasoning><answer>...concise answer...</answer>

[User]
Routing table:
O    44.144.128.0/17 [110/4] via 10.0.50.1, 00:02:17, GigabitEthernet0/0
C    192.168.123.0/24 is directly connected, GigabitEthernet0/0
O*IA 172.207.0.0/16 [110/2] via 192.168.233.254, 00:05:23, GigabitEthernet0/0
O    172.207.31.0/24 [110/3] via 10.0.156.1, 00:03:35, GigabitEthernet0/1
C    10.0.194.0/24 is directly connected, GigabitEthernet0/1
O    210.175.93.240/29 [110/4] via 10.0.24.1, 00:01:54, GigabitEthernet0/0
O    87.202.208.0/21 [110/2] via 10.0.221.1, 00:04:40, GigabitEthernet0/0

Question: Identify all potential issues in this routing table and classify them by severity.

[Assistant]
<reasoning>
1. Observation: The routing table contains a summary route 172.207.0.0/16 (O*IA) pointing to 192.168.233.254.
2. Observation: Only 1 specific routes exist within the summary range: 172.207.31.0/24. The vast majority of the 16 address space has no specific routes.
3. Analysis: Traffic destined to any subnet within 172.207.0.0/16 that does not have a more specific route will be forwarded to 192.168.233.254. If 192.168.233.254 is a firewall with a deny-all policy, a router with an ACL blocking traffic, or a next-hop on a failed link, this traffic will be silently dropped.
4. Impact: This creates a routing blackhole. Packets to legitimate but unadvertised subnets within the summary range will be lost. This is particularly dangerous because the route appears valid (next-hop is reachable) but actually discards traffic.
5. Detection: Prefix coverage analysis shows the summary covers far more address space than actually exists in the routing table. The absence of specific routes for most of the summary range indicates a blackhole risk.
6. Recommendation: Either (a) add more specific routes for all subnets within the summary, (b) configure a null0 route explicitly for unused space to avoid silent blackholing, or (c) narrow the summary to exactly match existing subnets. Verify next-hop 192.168.233.254 behavior with `traceroute` and check for ACLs/firewall policies.
</reasoning>
<answer>
CRITICAL: Summary blackhole detected. The route 172.207.0.0/16 (O*IA) covers a large address space but only 1 specific subnets exist within it. Traffic to unadvertised subnets will be forwarded to 192.168.233.254 and likely dropped. Fix: Narrow the summary prefix to exactly cover existing subnets, or add explicit null0 routes for unused portions. Verify 192.168.233.254 is not silently discarding traffic.
</answer>


[System] You are a network routing expert. Analyze the routing table, detect issues, and provide step-by-step reasoning. Use the format: <reasoning>...step-by-step analysis...</reasoning><answer>...concise answer...</answer>

[User]
Routing table:
C    10.0.153.0/24 is directly connected, GigabitEthernet0/1
O    40.230.195.16/28 [110/4] via 10.0.65.1, 00:02:36, GigabitEthernet0/0
O    172.163.212.0/24 [110/4] via 10.0.12.1, 00:04:50, GigabitEthernet0/1
C    192.168.142.0/24 is directly connected, GigabitEthernet0/0
O    120.160.80.0/21 [110/5] via 10.0.85.1, 00:02:53, GigabitEthernet0/0
O    196.222.10.40/30 [110/5] via 10.0.165.1, 00:01:55, GigabitEthernet0/0
S    172.163.0.0/16 [1/0] via 192.168.122.254

Question: What routing issues could cause network instability in this configuration?

[Assistant]
<reasoning>
1. Observation: The routing table contains a summary route 172.163.0.0/16 (S) pointing to 192.168.122.254.
2. Observation: Only 1 specific routes exist within the summary range: 172.163.212.0/24. The vast majority of the 16 address space has no specific routes.
3. Analysis: Traffic destined to any subnet within 172.163.0.0/16 that does not have a more specific route will be forwarded to 192.168.122.254. If 192.168.122.254 is a firewall with a deny-all policy, a router with an ACL blocking traffic, or a next-hop on a failed link, this traffic will be silently dropped.
4. Impact: This creates a routing blackhole. Packets to legitimate but unadvertised subnets within the summary range will be lost. This is particularly dangerous because the route appears valid (next-hop is reachable) but actually discards traffic.
5. Detection: Prefix coverage analysis shows the summary covers far more address space than actually exists in the routing table. The absence of specific routes for most of the summary range indicates a blackhole risk.
6. Recommendation: Either (a) add more specific routes for all subnets within the summary, (b) configure a null0 route explicitly for unused space to avoid silent blackholing, or (c) narrow the summary to exactly match existing subnets. Verify next-hop 192.168.122.254 behavior with `traceroute` and check for ACLs/firewall policies.
</reasoning>
<answer>
CRITICAL: Summary blackhole detected. The route 172.163.0.0/16 (S) covers a large address space but only 1 specific subnets exist within it. Traffic to unadvertised subnets will be forwarded to 192.168.122.254 and likely dropped. Fix: Narrow the summary prefix to exactly cover existing subnets, or add explicit null0 routes for unused portions. Verify 192.168.122.254 is not silently discarding traffic.
</answer>


[System] You are a network routing expert. Analyze the routing table, detect issues, and provide step-by-step reasoning. Use the format: <reasoning>...step-by-step analysis...</reasoning><answer>...concise answer...</answer>

[User]
Routing table:
O    150.99.13.128/25 [110/2] via 10.0.169.1, 00:03:18, GigabitEthernet0/0
O    7.135.64.0/21 [110/2] via 10.0.125.1, 00:04:43, GigabitEthernet0/0
C    192.168.61.0/24 is directly connected, GigabitEthernet0/0
S    10.194.0.0/22 [1/0] via 192.168.69.254
O    10.194.1.0/24 [110/5] via 10.0.144.1, 00:03:18, GigabitEthernet0/1
O    10.194.3.0/24 [110/3] via 10.0.87.1, 00:01:54, GigabitEthernet0/1
C    10.0.45.0/24 is directly connected, GigabitEthernet0/1
O    192.152.34.132/30 [110/2] via 10.0.246.1, 00:01:36, GigabitEthernet0/0
O    94.165.64.0/18 [110/2] via 10.0.137.1, 00:02:48, GigabitEthernet0/0
O    10.194.0.0/24 [110/2] via 10.0.52.1, 00:04:45, GigabitEthernet0/1

Question: What routing issues could cause network instability in this configuration?

[Assistant]
<reasoning>
1. Observation: The routing table contains a summary route 10.194.0.0/22 (S) pointing to 192.168.69.254.
2. Observation: Only 3 specific routes exist within the summary range: 10.194.3.0/24, 10.194.0.0/24, 10.194.1.0/24. The vast majority of the 22 address space has no specific routes.
3. Analysis: Traffic destined to any subnet within 10.194.0.0/22 that does not have a more specific route will be forwarded to 192.168.69.254. If 192.168.69.254 is a firewall with a deny-all policy, a router with an ACL blocking traffic, or a next-hop on a failed link, this traffic will be silently dropped.
4. Impact: This creates a routing blackhole. Packets to legitimate but unadvertised subnets within the summary range will be lost. This is particularly dangerous because the route appears valid (next-hop is reachable) but actually discards traffic.
5. Detection: Prefix coverage analysis shows the summary covers far more address space than actually exists in the routing table. The absence of specific routes for most of the summary range indicates a blackhole risk.
6. Recommendation: Either (a) add more specific routes for all subnets within the summary, (b) configure a null0 route explicitly for unused space to avoid silent blackholing, or (c) narrow the summary to exactly match existing subnets. Verify next-hop 192.168.69.254 behavior with `traceroute` and check for ACLs/firewall policies.
</reasoning>
<answer>
CRITICAL: Summary blackhole detected. The route 10.194.0.0/22 (S) covers a large address space but only 3 specific subnets exist within it. Traffic to unadvertised subnets will be forwarded to 192.168.69.254 and likely dropped. Fix: Narrow the summary prefix to exactly cover existing subnets, or add explicit null0 routes for unused portions. Verify 192.168.69.254 is not silently discarding traffic.
</answer>


[System] You are a network routing expert. Analyze the routing table, detect issues, and provide step-by-step reasoning. Use the format: <reasoning>...step-by-step analysis...</reasoning><answer>...concise answer...</answer>

[User]
Routing table:
O*IA 172.2.0.0/20 [110/2] via 192.168.146.254, 00:01:47, GigabitEthernet0/0
O    129.209.72.0/25 [110/3] via 10.0.240.1, 00:04:16, GigabitEthernet0/0
C    10.0.8.0/24 is directly connected, GigabitEthernet0/1
O    172.2.10.0/24 [110/3] via 10.0.156.1, 00:05:35, GigabitEthernet0/1
O    167.3.32.0/21 [110/3] via 10.0.96.1, 00:01:55, GigabitEthernet0/0
O    172.2.9.0/24 [110/3] via 10.0.216.1, 00:03:41, GigabitEthernet0/1
C    192.168.201.0/24 is directly connected, GigabitEthernet0/0

Question: Does this routing table have any unreachable next-hop addresses?

[Assistant]
<reasoning>
1. Observation: The routing table contains a summary route 172.2.0.0/20 (O*IA) pointing to 192.168.146.254.
2. Observation: Only 2 specific routes exist within the summary range: 172.2.10.0/24, 172.2.9.0/24. The vast majority of the 20 address space has no specific routes.
3. Analysis: Traffic destined to any subnet within 172.2.0.0/20 that does not have a more specific route will be forwarded to 192.168.146.254. If 192.168.146.254 is a firewall with a deny-all policy, a router with an ACL blocking traffic, or a next-hop on a failed link, this traffic will be silently dropped.
4. Impact: This creates a routing blackhole. Packets to legitimate but unadvertised subnets within the summary range will be lost. This is particularly dangerous because the route appears valid (next-hop is reachable) but actually discards traffic.
5. Detection: Prefix coverage analysis shows the summary covers far more address space than actually exists in the routing table. The absence of specific routes for most of the summary range indicates a blackhole risk.
6. Recommendation: Either (a) add more specific routes for all subnets within the summary, (b) configure a null0 route explicitly for unused space to avoid silent blackholing, or (c) narrow the summary to exactly match existing subnets. Verify next-hop 192.168.146.254 behavior with `traceroute` and check for ACLs/firewall policies.
</reasoning>
<answer>
CRITICAL: Summary blackhole detected. The route 172.2.0.0/20 (O*IA) covers a large address space but only 2 specific subnets exist within it. Traffic to unadvertised subnets will be forwarded to 192.168.146.254 and likely dropped. Fix: Narrow the summary prefix to exactly cover existing subnets, or add explicit null0 routes for unused portions. Verify 192.168.146.254 is not silently discarding traffic.
</answer>


[System] You are a network routing expert. Analyze the routing table, detect issues, and provide step-by-step reasoning. Use the format: <reasoning>...step-by-step analysis...</reasoning><answer>...concise answer...</answer>

[User]
Routing table:
C    192.168.201.0/24 is directly connected, GigabitEthernet0/0
C    10.0.44.0/24 is directly connected, GigabitEthernet0/1
S    172.150.0.0/16 [1/0] via 192.168.142.254
O    215.186.4.32/27 [110/4] via 10.0.118.1, 00:03:44, GigabitEthernet0/0
O    172.150.237.0/24 [110/2] via 10.0.174.1, 00:02:19, GigabitEthernet0/1
O    179.177.0.0/16 [110/2] via 10.0.204.1, 00:01:23, GigabitEthernet0/0
O    152.132.192.0/18 [110/4] via 10.0.99.1, 00:05:54, GigabitEthernet0/0

Question: What routing issues could cause network instability in this configuration?

[Assistant]
<reasoning>
1. Observation: The routing table contains a summary route 172.150.0.0/16 (S) pointing to 192.168.142.254.
2. Observation: Only 1 specific routes exist within the summary range: 172.150.237.0/24. The vast majority of the 16 address space has no specific routes.
3. Analysis: Traffic destined to any subnet within 172.150.0.0/16 that does not have a more specific route will be forwarded to 192.168.142.254. If 192.168.142.254 is a firewall with a deny-all policy, a router with an ACL blocking traffic, or a next-hop on a failed link, this traffic will be silently dropped.
4. Impact: This creates a routing blackhole. Packets to legitimate but unadvertised subnets within the summary range will be lost. This is particularly dangerous because the route appears valid (next-hop is reachable) but actually discards traffic.
5. Detection: Prefix coverage analysis shows the summary covers far more address space than actually exists in the routing table. The absence of specific routes for most of the summary range indicates a blackhole risk.
6. Recommendation: Either (a) add more specific routes for all subnets within the summary, (b) configure a null0 route explicitly for unused space to avoid silent blackholing, or (c) narrow the summary to exactly match existing subnets. Verify next-hop 192.168.142.254 behavior with `traceroute` and check for ACLs/firewall policies.
</reasoning>
<answer>
CRITICAL: Summary blackhole detected. The route 172.150.0.0/16 (S) covers a large address space but only 1 specific subnets exist within it. Traffic to unadvertised subnets will be forwarded to 192.168.142.254 and likely dropped. Fix: Narrow the summary prefix to exactly cover existing subnets, or add explicit null0 routes for unused portions. Verify 192.168.142.254 is not silently discarding traffic.
</answer>


[System] You are a network routing expert. Analyze the routing table, detect issues, and provide step-by-step reasoning. Use the format: <reasoning>...step-by-step analysis...</reasoning><answer>...concise answer...</answer>

[User]
Routing table:
O    10.10.1.0/24 [110/4] via 10.0.185.1, 00:04:51, GigabitEthernet0/1
O    65.82.0.0/16 [110/2] via 10.0.70.1, 00:01:42, GigabitEthernet0/0
C    10.0.70.0/24 is directly connected, GigabitEthernet0/1
O    74.172.80.0/20 [110/3] via 10.0.173.1, 00:01:17, GigabitEthernet0/0
O    10.10.1.0/24 [110/2] via 10.0.91.1, 00:02:30, GigabitEthernet0/1
S    10.10.0.0/20 [1/0] via 192.168.186.254
C    192.168.27.0/24 is directly connected, GigabitEthernet0/0

Question: Does this routing table have any unreachable next-hop addresses?

[Assistant]
<reasoning>
1. Observation: The routing table contains a summary route 10.10.0.0/20 (S) pointing to 192.168.186.254.
2. Observation: Only 2 specific routes exist within the summary range: 10.10.1.0/24, 10.10.1.0/24. The vast majority of the 20 address space has no specific routes.
3. Analysis: Traffic destined to any subnet within 10.10.0.0/20 that does not have a more specific route will be forwarded to 192.168.186.254. If 192.168.186.254 is a firewall with a deny-all policy, a router with an ACL blocking traffic, or a next-hop on a failed link, this traffic will be silently dropped.
4. Impact: This creates a routing blackhole. Packets to legitimate but unadvertised subnets within the summary range will be lost. This is particularly dangerous because the route appears valid (next-hop is reachable) but actually discards traffic.
5. Detection: Prefix coverage analysis shows the summary covers far more address space than actually exists in the routing table. The absence of specific routes for most of the summary range indicates a blackhole risk.
6. Recommendation: Either (a) add more specific routes for all subnets within the summary, (b) configure a null0 route explicitly for unused space to avoid silent blackholing, or (c) narrow the summary to exactly match existing subnets. Verify next-hop 192.168.186.254 behavior with `traceroute` and check for ACLs/firewall policies.
</reasoning>
<answer>
CRITICAL: Summary blackhole detected. The route 10.10.0.0/20 (S) covers a large address space but only 2 specific subnets exist within it. Traffic to unadvertised subnets will be forwarded to 192.168.186.254 and likely dropped. Fix: Narrow the summary prefix to exactly cover existing subnets, or add explicit null0 routes for unused portions. Verify 192.168.186.254 is not silently discarding traffic.
</answer>


[System] You are a network routing expert. Analyze the routing table, detect issues, and provide step-by-step reasoning. Use the format: <reasoning>...step-by-step analysis...</reasoning><answer>...concise answer...</answer>

[User]
Routing table:
S    172.219.0.0/20 [1/0] via 192.168.43.254
O    29.211.128.0/17 [110/4] via 10.0.55.1, 00:01:52, GigabitEthernet0/0
C    192.168.173.0/24 is directly connected, GigabitEthernet0/0
O    172.219.5.0/24 [110/2] via 10.0.82.1, 00:05:39, GigabitEthernet0/1
O    130.119.179.0/24 [110/2] via 10.0.223.1, 00:04:41, GigabitEthernet0/0
O    172.219.9.0/24 [110/5] via 10.0.12.1, 00:05:35, GigabitEthernet0/1
C    10.0.179.0/24 is directly connected, GigabitEthernet0/1

Question: Analyze this routing table for traffic blackholing risks.

[Assistant]
<reasoning>
1. Observation: The routing table contains a summary route 172.219.0.0/20 (S) pointing to 192.168.43.254.
2. Observation: Only 2 specific routes exist within the summary range: 172.219.5.0/24, 172.219.9.0/24. The vast majority of the 20 address space has no specific routes.
3. Analysis: Traffic destined to any subnet within 172.219.0.0/20 that does not have a more specific route will be forwarded to 192.168.43.254. If 192.168.43.254 is a firewall with a deny-all policy, a router with an ACL blocking traffic, or a next-hop on a failed link, this traffic will be silently dropped.
4. Impact: This creates a routing blackhole. Packets to legitimate but unadvertised subnets within the summary range will be lost. This is particularly dangerous because the route appears valid (next-hop is reachable) but actually discards traffic.
5. Detection: Prefix coverage analysis shows the summary covers far more address space than actually exists in the routing table. The absence of specific routes for most of the summary range indicates a blackhole risk.
6. Recommendation: Either (a) add more specific routes for all subnets within the summary, (b) configure a null0 route explicitly for unused space to avoid silent blackholing, or (c) narrow the summary to exactly match existing subnets. Verify next-hop 192.168.43.254 behavior with `traceroute` and check for ACLs/firewall policies.
</reasoning>
<answer>
CRITICAL: Summary blackhole detected. The route 172.219.0.0/20 (S) covers a large address space but only 2 specific subnets exist within it. Traffic to unadvertised subnets will be forwarded to 192.168.43.254 and likely dropped. Fix: Narrow the summary prefix to exactly cover existing subnets, or add explicit null0 routes for unused portions. Verify 192.168.43.254 is not silently discarding traffic.
</answer>


[System] You are a network routing expert. Analyze the routing table, detect issues, and provide step-by-step reasoning. Use the format: <reasoning>...step-by-step analysis...</reasoning><answer>...concise answer...</answer>

[User]
Routing table:
C    10.0.83.0/24 is directly connected, GigabitEthernet0/1
O    156.41.0.0/17 [110/3] via 10.0.136.1, 00:02:12, GigabitEthernet0/0
O    10.193.107.0/24 [110/2] via 10.0.6.1, 00:04:40, GigabitEthernet0/1
O    127.181.128.0/18 [110/4] via 10.0.78.1, 00:03:25, GigabitEthernet0/0
O*IA 10.193.0.0/16 [110/2] via 192.168.236.254, 00:03:46, GigabitEthernet0/0
O    10.193.156.0/24 [110/4] via 10.0.112.1, 00:02:59, GigabitEthernet0/1
O    10.193.149.0/24 [110/3] via 10.0.159.1, 00:04:48, GigabitEthernet0/1
C    192.168.226.0/24 is directly connected, GigabitEthernet0/0

Question: Does this routing table have any unreachable next-hop addresses?

[Assistant]
<reasoning>
1. Observation: The routing table contains a summary route 10.193.0.0/16 (O*IA) pointing to 192.168.236.254.
2. Observation: Only 3 specific routes exist within the summary range: 10.193.107.0/24, 10.193.156.0/24, 10.193.149.0/24. The vast majority of the 16 address space has no specific routes.
3. Analysis: Traffic destined to any subnet within 10.193.0.0/16 that does not have a more specific route will be forwarded to 192.168.236.254. If 192.168.236.254 is a firewall with a deny-all policy, a router with an ACL blocking traffic, or a next-hop on a failed link, this traffic will be silently dropped.
4. Impact: This creates a routing blackhole. Packets to legitimate but unadvertised subnets within the summary range will be lost. This is particularly dangerous because the route appears valid (next-hop is reachable) but actually discards traffic.
5. Detection: Prefix coverage analysis shows the summary covers far more address space than actually exists in the routing table. The absence of specific routes for most of the summary range indicates a blackhole risk.
6. Recommendation: Either (a) add more specific routes for all subnets within the summary, (b) configure a null0 route explicitly for unused space to avoid silent blackholing, or (c) narrow the summary to exactly match existing subnets. Verify next-hop 192.168.236.254 behavior with `traceroute` and check for ACLs/firewall policies.
</reasoning>
<answer>
CRITICAL: Summary blackhole detected. The route 10.193.0.0/16 (O*IA) covers a large address space but only 3 specific subnets exist within it. Traffic to unadvertised subnets will be forwarded to 192.168.236.254 and likely dropped. Fix: Narrow the summary prefix to exactly cover existing subnets, or add explicit null0 routes for unused portions. Verify 192.168.236.254 is not silently discarding traffic.
</answer>


[System] You are a network routing expert. Analyze the routing table, detect issues, and provide step-by-step reasoning. Use the format: <reasoning>...step-by-step analysis...</reasoning><answer>...concise answer...</answer>

[User]
Routing table:
C    192.168.17.0/24 is directly connected, GigabitEthernet0/0
O    69.90.76.200/30 [110/4] via 10.0.172.1, 00:03:38, GigabitEthernet0/0
C    10.0.145.0/24 is directly connected, GigabitEthernet0/1
O    10.52.230.0/24 [110/3] via 10.0.231.1, 00:03:24, GigabitEthernet0/1
O    83.22.244.0/25 [110/5] via 10.0.83.1, 00:05:23, GigabitEthernet0/0
O    141.168.8.0/21 [110/3] via 10.0.79.1, 00:03:28, GigabitEthernet0/0
S    10.52.0.0/16 [1/0] via 192.168.235.254
O    78.49.103.0/26 [110/2] via 10.0.118.1, 00:03:11, GigabitEthernet0/0

Question: Analyze this routing table for traffic blackholing risks.

[Assistant]
<reasoning>
1. Observation: The routing table contains a summary route 10.52.0.0/16 (S) pointing to 192.168.235.254.
2. Observation: Only 1 specific routes exist within the summary range: 10.52.230.0/24. The vast majority of the 16 address space has no specific routes.
3. Analysis: Traffic destined to any subnet within 10.52.0.0/16 that does not have a more specific route will be forwarded to 192.168.235.254. If 192.168.235.254 is a firewall with a deny-all policy, a router with an ACL blocking traffic, or a next-hop on a failed link, this traffic will be silently dropped.
4. Impact: This creates a routing blackhole. Packets to legitimate but unadvertised subnets within the summary range will be lost. This is particularly dangerous because the route appears valid (next-hop is reachable) but actually discards traffic.
5. Detection: Prefix coverage analysis shows the summary covers far more address space than actually exists in the routing table. The absence of specific routes for most of the summary range indicates a blackhole risk.
6. Recommendation: Either (a) add more specific routes for all subnets within the summary, (b) configure a null0 route explicitly for unused space to avoid silent blackholing, or (c) narrow the summary to exactly match existing subnets. Verify next-hop 192.168.235.254 behavior with `traceroute` and check for ACLs/firewall policies.
</reasoning>
<answer>
CRITICAL: Summary blackhole detected. The route 10.52.0.0/16 (S) covers a large address space but only 1 specific subnets exist within it. Traffic to unadvertised subnets will be forwarded to 192.168.235.254 and likely dropped. Fix: Narrow the summary prefix to exactly cover existing subnets, or add explicit null0 routes for unused portions. Verify 192.168.235.254 is not silently discarding traffic.
</answer>


[System] You are a network routing expert. Analyze the routing table, detect issues, and provide step-by-step reasoning. Use the format: <reasoning>...step-by-step analysis...</reasoning><answer>...concise answer...</answer>

[User]
Routing table:
O    172.56.103.0/24 [110/3] via 10.0.206.1, 00:01:39, GigabitEthernet0/1
O    71.35.91.0/24 [110/4] via 10.0.204.1, 00:03:37, GigabitEthernet0/0
C    10.0.215.0/24 is directly connected, GigabitEthernet0/1
O    172.56.228.0/24 [110/5] via 10.0.251.1, 00:05:11, GigabitEthernet0/1
O    112.52.82.0/23 [110/4] via 10.0.238.1, 00:05:27, GigabitEthernet0/0
C    192.168.248.0/24 is directly connected, GigabitEthernet0/0
O    172.56.139.0/24 [110/5] via 10.0.192.1, 00:03:13, GigabitEthernet0/1
S    172.56.0.0/16 [1/0] via 192.168.220.254

Question: Identify all potential issues in this routing table and classify them by severity.

[Assistant]
<reasoning>
1. Observation: The routing table contains a summary route 172.56.0.0/16 (S) pointing to 192.168.220.254.
2. Observation: Only 3 specific routes exist within the summary range: 172.56.228.0/24, 172.56.103.0/24, 172.56.139.0/24. The vast majority of the 16 address space has no specific routes.
3. Analysis: Traffic destined to any subnet within 172.56.0.0/16 that does not have a more specific route will be forwarded to 192.168.220.254. If 192.168.220.254 is a firewall with a deny-all policy, a router with an ACL blocking traffic, or a next-hop on a failed link, this traffic will be silently dropped.
4. Impact: This creates a routing blackhole. Packets to legitimate but unadvertised subnets within the summary range will be lost. This is particularly dangerous because the route appears valid (next-hop is reachable) but actually discards traffic.
5. Detection: Prefix coverage analysis shows the summary covers far more address space than actually exists in the routing table. The absence of specific routes for most of the summary range indicates a blackhole risk.
6. Recommendation: Either (a) add more specific routes for all subnets within the summary, (b) configure a null0 route explicitly for unused space to avoid silent blackholing, or (c) narrow the summary to exactly match existing subnets. Verify next-hop 192.168.220.254 behavior with `traceroute` and check for ACLs/firewall policies.
</reasoning>
<answer>
CRITICAL: Summary blackhole detected. The route 172.56.0.0/16 (S) covers a large address space but only 3 specific subnets exist within it. Traffic to unadvertised subnets will be forwarded to 192.168.220.254 and likely dropped. Fix: Narrow the summary prefix to exactly cover existing subnets, or add explicit null0 routes for unused portions. Verify 192.168.220.254 is not silently discarding traffic.
</answer>


[System] You are a network routing expert. Analyze the routing table, detect issues, and provide step-by-step reasoning. Use the format: <reasoning>...step-by-step analysis...</reasoning><answer>...concise answer...</answer>

[User]
Routing table:
O    10.192.79.0/24 [110/5] via 10.0.151.1, 00:01:50, GigabitEthernet0/1
O    72.188.172.0/23 [110/2] via 10.0.96.1, 00:04:47, GigabitEthernet0/0
C    192.168.60.0/24 is directly connected, GigabitEthernet0/0
C    10.0.140.0/24 is directly connected, GigabitEthernet0/1
O    217.132.182.112/28 [110/5] via 10.0.13.1, 00:04:50, GigabitEthernet0/0
O*IA 10.192.0.0/16 [110/2] via 192.168.249.254, 00:05:46, GigabitEthernet0/0
O    91.44.97.168/30 [110/4] via 10.0.10.1, 00:01:26, GigabitEthernet0/0
O    10.192.74.0/24 [110/2] via 10.0.87.1, 00:01:12, GigabitEthernet0/1

Question: Does this routing table contain a routing blackhole?

[Assistant]
<reasoning>
1. Observation: The routing table contains a summary route 10.192.0.0/16 (O*IA) pointing to 192.168.249.254.
2. Observation: Only 2 specific routes exist within the summary range: 10.192.79.0/24, 10.192.74.0/24. The vast majority of the 16 address space has no specific routes.
3. Analysis: Traffic destined to any subnet within 10.192.0.0/16 that does not have a more specific route will be forwarded to 192.168.249.254. If 192.168.249.254 is a firewall with a deny-all policy, a router with an ACL blocking traffic, or a next-hop on a failed link, this traffic will be silently dropped.
4. Impact: This creates a routing blackhole. Packets to legitimate but unadvertised subnets within the summary range will be lost. This is particularly dangerous because the route appears valid (next-hop is reachable) but actually discards traffic.
5. Detection: Prefix coverage analysis shows the summary covers far more address space than actually exists in the routing table. The absence of specific routes for most of the summary range indicates a blackhole risk.
6. Recommendation: Either (a) add more specific routes for all subnets within the summary, (b) configure a null0 route explicitly for unused space to avoid silent blackholing, or (c) narrow the summary to exactly match existing subnets. Verify next-hop 192.168.249.254 behavior with `traceroute` and check for ACLs/firewall policies.
</reasoning>
<answer>
CRITICAL: Summary blackhole detected. The route 10.192.0.0/16 (O*IA) covers a large address space but only 2 specific subnets exist within it. Traffic to unadvertised subnets will be forwarded to 192.168.249.254 and likely dropped. Fix: Narrow the summary prefix to exactly cover existing subnets, or add explicit null0 routes for unused portions. Verify 192.168.249.254 is not silently discarding traffic.
</answer>


[System] You are a network routing expert. Analyze the routing table, detect issues, and provide step-by-step reasoning. Use the format: <reasoning>...step-by-step analysis...</reasoning><answer>...concise answer...</answer>

[User]
Routing table:
C    192.168.211.0/24 is directly connected, GigabitEthernet0/0
S    10.91.0.0/20 [1/0] via 192.168.38.254
O    166.27.153.128/26 [110/5] via 10.0.199.1, 00:02:44, GigabitEthernet0/0
O    172.0.160.0/21 [110/3] via 10.0.172.1, 00:01:30, GigabitEthernet0/0
C    10.0.214.0/24 is directly connected, GigabitEthernet0/1
O    68.125.251.192/26 [110/4] via 10.0.115.1, 00:02:49, GigabitEthernet0/0
O    64.137.239.224/27 [110/3] via 10.0.42.1, 00:02:40, GigabitEthernet0/0
O    214.113.220.64/28 [110/5] via 10.0.146.1, 00:02:24, GigabitEthernet0/0
O    10.91.9.0/24 [110/4] via 10.0.8.1, 00:04:30, GigabitEthernet0/1

Question: What routing issues could cause network instability in this configuration?

[Assistant]
<reasoning>
1. Observation: The routing table contains a summary route 10.91.0.0/20 (S) pointing to 192.168.38.254.
2. Observation: Only 1 specific routes exist within the summary range: 10.91.9.0/24. The vast majority of the 20 address space has no specific routes.
3. Analysis: Traffic destined to any subnet within 10.91.0.0/20 that does not have a more specific route will be forwarded to 192.168.38.254. If 192.168.38.254 is a firewall with a deny-all policy, a router with an ACL blocking traffic, or a next-hop on a failed link, this traffic will be silently dropped.
4. Impact: This creates a routing blackhole. Packets to legitimate but unadvertised subnets within the summary range will be lost. This is particularly dangerous because the route appears valid (next-hop is reachable) but actually discards traffic.
5. Detection: Prefix coverage analysis shows the summary covers far more address space than actually exists in the routing table. The absence of specific routes for most of the summary range indicates a blackhole risk.
6. Recommendation: Either (a) add more specific routes for all subnets within the summary, (b) configure a null0 route explicitly for unused space to avoid silent blackholing, or (c) narrow the summary to exactly match existing subnets. Verify next-hop 192.168.38.254 behavior with `traceroute` and check for ACLs/firewall policies.
</reasoning>
<answer>
CRITICAL: Summary blackhole detected. The route 10.91.0.0/20 (S) covers a large address space but only 1 specific subnets exist within it. Traffic to unadvertised subnets will be forwarded to 192.168.38.254 and likely dropped. Fix: Narrow the summary prefix to exactly cover existing subnets, or add explicit null0 routes for unused portions. Verify 192.168.38.254 is not silently discarding traffic.
</answer>


[System] You are a network routing expert. Analyze the routing table, detect issues, and provide step-by-step reasoning. Use the format: <reasoning>...step-by-step analysis...</reasoning><answer>...concise answer...</answer>

[User]
Routing table:
O    76.152.204.144/28 [110/2] via 10.0.84.1, 00:01:32, GigabitEthernet0/0
O    175.247.56.0/21 [110/4] via 10.0.215.1, 00:03:32, GigabitEthernet0/0
C    192.168.4.0/24 is directly connected, GigabitEthernet0/0
O    81.182.0.0/17 [110/2] via 10.0.111.1, 00:04:39, GigabitEthernet0/0
O    41.128.154.0/23 [110/2] via 10.0.101.1, 00:02:49, GigabitEthernet0/0
C    10.0.190.0/24 is directly connected, GigabitEthernet0/1
S    10.199.0.0/22 [1/0] via 192.168.161.254
O    68.169.0.0/17 [110/5] via 10.0.185.1, 00:02:30, GigabitEthernet0/0
O    10.199.3.0/24 [110/5] via 10.0.93.1, 00:03:48, GigabitEthernet0/1

Question: What routing issues could cause network instability in this configuration?

[Assistant]
<reasoning>
1. Observation: The routing table contains a summary route 10.199.0.0/22 (S) pointing to 192.168.161.254.
2. Observation: Only 1 specific routes exist within the summary range: 10.199.3.0/24. The vast majority of the 22 address space has no specific routes.
3. Analysis: Traffic destined to any subnet within 10.199.0.0/22 that does not have a more specific route will be forwarded to 192.168.161.254. If 192.168.161.254 is a firewall with a deny-all policy, a router with an ACL blocking traffic, or a next-hop on a failed link, this traffic will be silently dropped.
4. Impact: This creates a routing blackhole. Packets to legitimate but unadvertised subnets within the summary range will be lost. This is particularly dangerous because the route appears valid (next-hop is reachable) but actually discards traffic.
5. Detection: Prefix coverage analysis shows the summary covers far more address space than actually exists in the routing table. The absence of specific routes for most of the summary range indicates a blackhole risk.
6. Recommendation: Either (a) add more specific routes for all subnets within the summary, (b) configure a null0 route explicitly for unused space to avoid silent blackholing, or (c) narrow the summary to exactly match existing subnets. Verify next-hop 192.168.161.254 behavior with `traceroute` and check for ACLs/firewall policies.
</reasoning>
<answer>
CRITICAL: Summary blackhole detected. The route 10.199.0.0/22 (S) covers a large address space but only 1 specific subnets exist within it. Traffic to unadvertised subnets will be forwarded to 192.168.161.254 and likely dropped. Fix: Narrow the summary prefix to exactly cover existing subnets, or add explicit null0 routes for unused portions. Verify 192.168.161.254 is not silently discarding traffic.
</answer>


[System] You are a network routing expert. Analyze the routing table, detect issues, and provide step-by-step reasoning. Use the format: <reasoning>...step-by-step analysis...</reasoning><answer>...concise answer...</answer>

[User]
Routing table:
O    6.121.0.0/17 [110/3] via 10.0.129.1, 00:03:36, GigabitEthernet0/0
O*IA 10.15.0.0/20 [110/2] via 192.168.231.254, 00:04:54, GigabitEthernet0/0
C    192.168.57.0/24 is directly connected, GigabitEthernet0/0
O    139.110.0.0/16 [110/2] via 10.0.98.1, 00:03:57, GigabitEthernet0/0
O    10.15.13.0/24 [110/2] via 10.0.3.1, 00:05:19, GigabitEthernet0/1
O    10.15.6.0/24 [110/4] via 10.0.197.1, 00:04:58, GigabitEthernet0/1
O    4.253.192.0/18 [110/4] via 10.0.190.1, 00:05:22, GigabitEthernet0/0
C    10.0.45.0/24 is directly connected, GigabitEthernet0/1

Question: Does this routing table have any unreachable next-hop addresses?

[Assistant]
<reasoning>
1. Observation: The routing table contains a summary route 10.15.0.0/20 (O*IA) pointing to 192.168.231.254.
2. Observation: Only 2 specific routes exist within the summary range: 10.15.13.0/24, 10.15.6.0/24. The vast majority of the 20 address space has no specific routes.
3. Analysis: Traffic destined to any subnet within 10.15.0.0/20 that does not have a more specific route will be forwarded to 192.168.231.254. If 192.168.231.254 is a firewall with a deny-all policy, a router with an ACL blocking traffic, or a next-hop on a failed link, this traffic will be silently dropped.
4. Impact: This creates a routing blackhole. Packets to legitimate but unadvertised subnets within the summary range will be lost. This is particularly dangerous because the route appears valid (next-hop is reachable) but actually discards traffic.
5. Detection: Prefix coverage analysis shows the summary covers far more address space than actually exists in the routing table. The absence of specific routes for most of the summary range indicates a blackhole risk.
6. Recommendation: Either (a) add more specific routes for all subnets within the summary, (b) configure a null0 route explicitly for unused space to avoid silent blackholing, or (c) narrow the summary to exactly match existing subnets. Verify next-hop 192.168.231.254 behavior with `traceroute` and check for ACLs/firewall policies.
</reasoning>
<answer>
CRITICAL: Summary blackhole detected. The route 10.15.0.0/20 (O*IA) covers a large address space but only 2 specific subnets exist within it. Traffic to unadvertised subnets will be forwarded to 192.168.231.254 and likely dropped. Fix: Narrow the summary prefix to exactly cover existing subnets, or add explicit null0 routes for unused portions. Verify 192.168.231.254 is not silently discarding traffic.
</answer>


[System] You are a network routing expert. Analyze the routing table, detect issues, and provide step-by-step reasoning. Use the format: <reasoning>...step-by-step analysis...</reasoning><answer>...concise answer...</answer>

[User]
Routing table:
O    172.25.103.0/24 [110/4] via 10.0.104.1, 00:05:11, GigabitEthernet0/1
O    172.25.148.0/24 [110/5] via 10.0.251.1, 00:02:20, GigabitEthernet0/1
C    192.168.124.0/24 is directly connected, GigabitEthernet0/0
O*IA 172.25.0.0/16 [110/2] via 192.168.154.254, 00:04:56, GigabitEthernet0/0
O    172.25.196.0/24 [110/3] via 10.0.42.1, 00:04:35, GigabitEthernet0/1
O    163.50.138.212/30 [110/2] via 10.0.215.1, 00:03:48, GigabitEthernet0/0
O    109.216.112.128/25 [110/5] via 10.0.223.1, 00:03:50, GigabitEthernet0/0
C    10.0.224.0/24 is directly connected, GigabitEthernet0/1

Question: Analyze this routing table for traffic blackholing risks.

[Assistant]
<reasoning>
1. Observation: The routing table contains a summary route 172.25.0.0/16 (O*IA) pointing to 192.168.154.254.
2. Observation: Only 3 specific routes exist within the summary range: 172.25.103.0/24, 172.25.196.0/24, 172.25.148.0/24. The vast majority of the 16 address space has no specific routes.
3. Analysis: Traffic destined to any subnet within 172.25.0.0/16 that does not have a more specific route will be forwarded to 192.168.154.254. If 192.168.154.254 is a firewall with a deny-all policy, a router with an ACL blocking traffic, or a next-hop on a failed link, this traffic will be silently dropped.
4. Impact: This creates a routing blackhole. Packets to legitimate but unadvertised subnets within the summary range will be lost. This is particularly dangerous because the route appears valid (next-hop is reachable) but actually discards traffic.
5. Detection: Prefix coverage analysis shows the summary covers far more address space than actually exists in the routing table. The absence of specific routes for most of the summary range indicates a blackhole risk.
6. Recommendation: Either (a) add more specific routes for all subnets within the summary, (b) configure a null0 route explicitly for unused space to avoid silent blackholing, or (c) narrow the summary to exactly match existing subnets. Verify next-hop 192.168.154.254 behavior with `traceroute` and check for ACLs/firewall policies.
</reasoning>
<answer>
CRITICAL: Summary blackhole detected. The route 172.25.0.0/16 (O*IA) covers a large address space but only 3 specific subnets exist within it. Traffic to unadvertised subnets will be forwarded to 192.168.154.254 and likely dropped. Fix: Narrow the summary prefix to exactly cover existing subnets, or add explicit null0 routes for unused portions. Verify 192.168.154.254 is not silently discarding traffic.
</answer>


[System] You are a network routing expert. Analyze the routing table, detect issues, and provide step-by-step reasoning. Use the format: <reasoning>...step-by-step analysis...</reasoning><answer>...concise answer...</answer>

[User]
Routing table:
C    10.0.175.0/24 is directly connected, GigabitEthernet0/1
O    172.232.148.0/24 [110/5] via 10.0.198.1, 00:04:28, GigabitEthernet0/1
C    192.168.176.0/24 is directly connected, GigabitEthernet0/0
O    172.232.1.0/24 [110/2] via 10.0.28.1, 00:04:13, GigabitEthernet0/1
O    129.102.192.0/18 [110/5] via 10.0.147.1, 00:01:28, GigabitEthernet0/0
O    32.6.237.16/28 [110/3] via 10.0.170.1, 00:02:21, GigabitEthernet0/0
S    172.232.0.0/16 [1/0] via 192.168.22.254

Question: Identify all potential issues in this routing table and classify them by severity.

[Assistant]
<reasoning>
1. Observation: The routing table contains a summary route 172.232.0.0/16 (S) pointing to 192.168.22.254.
2. Observation: Only 2 specific routes exist within the summary range: 172.232.148.0/24, 172.232.1.0/24. The vast majority of the 16 address space has no specific routes.
3. Analysis: Traffic destined to any subnet within 172.232.0.0/16 that does not have a more specific route will be forwarded to 192.168.22.254. If 192.168.22.254 is a firewall with a deny-all policy, a router with an ACL blocking traffic, or a next-hop on a failed link, this traffic will be silently dropped.
4. Impact: This creates a routing blackhole. Packets to legitimate but unadvertised subnets within the summary range will be lost. This is particularly dangerous because the route appears valid (next-hop is reachable) but actually discards traffic.
5. Detection: Prefix coverage analysis shows the summary covers far more address space than actually exists in the routing table. The absence of specific routes for most of the summary range indicates a blackhole risk.
6. Recommendation: Either (a) add more specific routes for all subnets within the summary, (b) configure a null0 route explicitly for unused space to avoid silent blackholing, or (c) narrow the summary to exactly match existing subnets. Verify next-hop 192.168.22.254 behavior with `traceroute` and check for ACLs/firewall policies.
</reasoning>
<answer>
CRITICAL: Summary blackhole detected. The route 172.232.0.0/16 (S) covers a large address space but only 2 specific subnets exist within it. Traffic to unadvertised subnets will be forwarded to 192.168.22.254 and likely dropped. Fix: Narrow the summary prefix to exactly cover existing subnets, or add explicit null0 routes for unused portions. Verify 192.168.22.254 is not silently discarding traffic.
</answer>


[System] You are a network routing expert. Analyze the routing table, detect issues, and provide step-by-step reasoning. Use the format: <reasoning>...step-by-step analysis...</reasoning><answer>...concise answer...</answer>

[User]
Routing table:
O    143.175.0.0/16 [110/5] via 10.0.134.1, 00:04:13, GigabitEthernet0/0
C    10.0.170.0/24 is directly connected, GigabitEthernet0/1
O    24.7.69.236/30 [110/2] via 10.0.190.1, 00:02:12, GigabitEthernet0/0
O*IA 172.240.0.0/22 [110/2] via 192.168.30.254, 00:01:28, GigabitEthernet0/0
C    192.168.233.0/24 is directly connected, GigabitEthernet0/0
O    89.238.241.128/28 [110/2] via 10.0.239.1, 00:02:39, GigabitEthernet0/0
O    172.240.3.0/24 [110/3] via 10.0.52.1, 00:01:28, GigabitEthernet0/1
O    135.229.176.0/20 [110/2] via 10.0.179.1, 00:05:47, GigabitEthernet0/0

Question: Identify all potential issues in this routing table and classify them by severity.

[Assistant]
<reasoning>
1. Observation: The routing table contains a summary route 172.240.0.0/22 (O*IA) pointing to 192.168.30.254.
2. Observation: Only 1 specific routes exist within the summary range: 172.240.3.0/24. The vast majority of the 22 address space has no specific routes.
3. Analysis: Traffic destined to any subnet within 172.240.0.0/22 that does not have a more specific route will be forwarded to 192.168.30.254. If 192.168.30.254 is a firewall with a deny-all policy, a router with an ACL blocking traffic, or a next-hop on a failed link, this traffic will be silently dropped.
4. Impact: This creates a routing blackhole. Packets to legitimate but unadvertised subnets within the summary range will be lost. This is particularly dangerous because the route appears valid (next-hop is reachable) but actually discards traffic.
5. Detection: Prefix coverage analysis shows the summary covers far more address space than actually exists in the routing table. The absence of specific routes for most of the summary range indicates a blackhole risk.
6. Recommendation: Either (a) add more specific routes for all subnets within the summary, (b) configure a null0 route explicitly for unused space to avoid silent blackholing, or (c) narrow the summary to exactly match existing subnets. Verify next-hop 192.168.30.254 behavior with `traceroute` and check for ACLs/firewall policies.
</reasoning>
<answer>
CRITICAL: Summary blackhole detected. The route 172.240.0.0/22 (O*IA) covers a large address space but only 1 specific subnets exist within it. Traffic to unadvertised subnets will be forwarded to 192.168.30.254 and likely dropped. Fix: Narrow the summary prefix to exactly cover existing subnets, or add explicit null0 routes for unused portions. Verify 192.168.30.254 is not silently discarding traffic.
</answer>


[System] You are a network routing expert. Analyze the routing table, detect issues, and provide step-by-step reasoning. Use the format: <reasoning>...step-by-step analysis...</reasoning><answer>...concise answer...</answer>

[User]
Routing table:
O    82.207.24.128/25 [110/5] via 10.0.115.1, 00:02:14, GigabitEthernet0/0
C    10.0.36.0/24 is directly connected, GigabitEthernet0/1
C    192.168.107.0/24 is directly connected, GigabitEthernet0/0
O    197.235.0.0/17 [110/5] via 10.0.21.1, 00:03:16, GigabitEthernet0/0
S    192.102.0.0/20 [1/0] via Null0

Question: Does this routing table contain a routing blackhole?

[Assistant]
<reasoning>
1. Observation: The routing table contains a static route 192.102.0.0/20 pointing to Null0.
2. Observation: Only 1 specific routes exist within the blackhole range: 192.102.110.0/24.
3. Analysis: A Null0 route is typically used for traffic filtering or BGP blackholing. However, if legitimate subnets within 192.102.0.0/20 are not explicitly routed with more specific prefixes, ALL traffic to those subnets will be dropped by the Null0 route. The Null0 route acts as a "discard" for anything matching its prefix that doesn't have a more specific route.
4. Impact: Any traffic to subnets within 192.102.0.0/20 that lack specific routes will be silently discarded. This is a common misconfiguration when administrators add Null0 routes for security but forget to add exceptions for active subnets.
5. Detection: The presence of a Null0 route with a broad prefix (20) combined with insufficient specific routes within that range indicates a potential blackhole.
6. Recommendation: Review the Null0 route necessity. If legitimate traffic should flow to subnets within 192.102.0.0/20, add specific routes for each active subnet with lower prefix lengths (more specific than /20). Alternatively, narrow the Null0 route to only cover truly unused address space.
</reasoning>
<answer>
CRITICAL: Static blackhole route detected. 192.102.0.0/20 is routed to Null0, which silently drops all matching traffic. Only 1 specific routes override this blackhole. Any traffic to unadvertised subnets within 192.102.0.0/20 will be lost. Fix: Add specific routes for all legitimate subnets within 192.102.0.0/20, or narrow the Null0 route to cover only unused address space. Verify with `show ip route 192.102.0.0/20` and `ping` tests.
</answer>


[System] You are a network routing expert. Analyze the routing table, detect issues, and provide step-by-step reasoning. Use the format: <reasoning>...step-by-step analysis...</reasoning><answer>...concise answer...</answer>

[User]
Routing table:
O    10.234.58.0/25 [110/2] via 10.0.50.1, 00:05:57, GigabitEthernet0/1
O    121.57.128.0/18 [110/5] via 10.0.210.1, 00:05:55, GigabitEthernet0/0
S    10.234.200.0/24 [1/0] via Null0
C    192.168.175.0/24 is directly connected, GigabitEthernet0/0
C    10.0.27.0/24 is directly connected, GigabitEthernet0/1
O    5.17.0.0/17 [110/2] via 10.0.91.1, 00:01:25, GigabitEthernet0/0
O    147.51.80.0/20 [110/5] via 10.0.65.1, 00:04:57, GigabitEthernet0/0

Question: Identify all potential issues in this routing table and classify them by severity.

[Assistant]
<reasoning>
1. Observation: The routing table contains a static route 10.234.200.0/24 pointing to Null0.
2. Observation: Only 3 specific routes exist within the blackhole range: 10.234.58.0/25, 10.234.83.0/25, 10.234.25.0/25.
3. Analysis: A Null0 route is typically used for traffic filtering or BGP blackholing. However, if legitimate subnets within 10.234.200.0/24 are not explicitly routed with more specific prefixes, ALL traffic to those subnets will be dropped by the Null0 route. The Null0 route acts as a "discard" for anything matching its prefix that doesn't have a more specific route.
4. Impact: Any traffic to subnets within 10.234.200.0/24 that lack specific routes will be silently discarded. This is a common misconfiguration when administrators add Null0 routes for security but forget to add exceptions for active subnets.
5. Detection: The presence of a Null0 route with a broad prefix (24) combined with insufficient specific routes within that range indicates a potential blackhole.
6. Recommendation: Review the Null0 route necessity. If legitimate traffic should flow to subnets within 10.234.200.0/24, add specific routes for each active subnet with lower prefix lengths (more specific than /24). Alternatively, narrow the Null0 route to only cover truly unused address space.
</reasoning>
<answer>
CRITICAL: Static blackhole route detected. 10.234.200.0/24 is routed to Null0, which silently drops all matching traffic. Only 3 specific routes override this blackhole. Any traffic to unadvertised subnets within 10.234.200.0/24 will be lost. Fix: Add specific routes for all legitimate subnets within 10.234.200.0/24, or narrow the Null0 route to cover only unused address space. Verify with `show ip route 10.234.200.0/24` and `ping` tests.
</answer>


[System] You are a network routing expert. Analyze the routing table, detect issues, and provide step-by-step reasoning. Use the format: <reasoning>...step-by-step analysis...</reasoning><answer>...concise answer...</answer>

[User]
Routing table:
O    135.64.0.0/16 [110/2] via 10.0.220.1, 00:03:41, GigabitEthernet0/0
C    192.168.49.0/24 is directly connected, GigabitEthernet0/0
O    104.114.240.0/20 [110/3] via 10.0.211.1, 00:02:17, GigabitEthernet0/0
O    150.97.175.240/28 [110/4] via 10.0.217.1, 00:02:27, GigabitEthernet0/0
C    10.0.240.0/24 is directly connected, GigabitEthernet0/1
S    172.75.0.0/16 [1/0] via Null0

Question: Does this routing table have any unreachable next-hop addresses?

[Assistant]
<reasoning>
1. Observation: The routing table contains a static route 172.75.0.0/16 pointing to Null0.
2. Observation: Only 0 specific routes exist within the blackhole range: none.
3. Analysis: A Null0 route is typically used for traffic filtering or BGP blackholing. However, if legitimate subnets within 172.75.0.0/16 are not explicitly routed with more specific prefixes, ALL traffic to those subnets will be dropped by the Null0 route. The Null0 route acts as a "discard" for anything matching its prefix that doesn't have a more specific route.
4. Impact: Any traffic to subnets within 172.75.0.0/16 that lack specific routes will be silently discarded. This is a common misconfiguration when administrators add Null0 routes for security but forget to add exceptions for active subnets.
5. Detection: The presence of a Null0 route with a broad prefix (16) combined with insufficient specific routes within that range indicates a potential blackhole.
6. Recommendation: Review the Null0 route necessity. If legitimate traffic should flow to subnets within 172.75.0.0/16, add specific routes for each active subnet with lower prefix lengths (more specific than /16). Alternatively, narrow the Null0 route to only cover truly unused address space.
</reasoning>
<answer>
CRITICAL: Static blackhole route detected. 172.75.0.0/16 is routed to Null0, which silently drops all matching traffic. Only 0 specific routes override this blackhole. Any traffic to unadvertised subnets within 172.75.0.0/16 will be lost. Fix: Add specific routes for all legitimate subnets within 172.75.0.0/16, or narrow the Null0 route to cover only unused address space. Verify with `show ip route 172.75.0.0/16` and `ping` tests.
</answer>


[System] You are a network routing expert. Analyze the routing table, detect issues, and provide step-by-step reasoning. Use the format: <reasoning>...step-by-step analysis...</reasoning><answer>...concise answer...</answer>

[User]
Routing table:
C    10.0.231.0/24 is directly connected, GigabitEthernet0/1
O    219.213.64.0/18 [110/2] via 10.0.55.1, 00:04:49, GigabitEthernet0/0
O    47.176.242.240/28 [110/3] via 10.0.59.1, 00:03:23, GigabitEthernet0/0
C    192.168.205.0/24 is directly connected, GigabitEthernet0/0
O    86.9.163.64/26 [110/3] via 10.0.240.1, 00:01:14, GigabitEthernet0/0
S    192.145.234.0/24 [1/0] via Null0
O    67.138.78.0/23 [110/5] via 10.0.248.1, 00:01:26, GigabitEthernet0/0
O    38.112.88.0/23 [110/5] via 10.0.41.1, 00:04:53, GigabitEthernet0/0

Question: Identify all potential issues in this routing table and classify them by severity.

[Assistant]
<reasoning>
1. Observation: The routing table contains a static route 192.145.234.0/24 pointing to Null0.
2. Observation: Only 1 specific routes exist within the blackhole range: 192.145.8.0/25.
3. Analysis: A Null0 route is typically used for traffic filtering or BGP blackholing. However, if legitimate subnets within 192.145.234.0/24 are not explicitly routed with more specific prefixes, ALL traffic to those subnets will be dropped by the Null0 route. The Null0 route acts as a "discard" for anything matching its prefix that doesn't have a more specific route.
4. Impact: Any traffic to subnets within 192.145.234.0/24 that lack specific routes will be silently discarded. This is a common misconfiguration when administrators add Null0 routes for security but forget to add exceptions for active subnets.
5. Detection: The presence of a Null0 route with a broad prefix (24) combined with insufficient specific routes within that range indicates a potential blackhole.
6. Recommendation: Review the Null0 route necessity. If legitimate traffic should flow to subnets within 192.145.234.0/24, add specific routes for each active subnet with lower prefix lengths (more specific than /24). Alternatively, narrow the Null0 route to only cover truly unused address space.
</reasoning>
<answer>
CRITICAL: Static blackhole route detected. 192.145.234.0/24 is routed to Null0, which silently drops all matching traffic. Only 1 specific routes override this blackhole. Any traffic to unadvertised subnets within 192.145.234.0/24 will be lost. Fix: Add specific routes for all legitimate subnets within 192.145.234.0/24, or narrow the Null0 route to cover only unused address space. Verify with `show ip route 192.145.234.0/24` and `ping` tests.
</answer>


[System] You are a network routing expert. Analyze the routing table, detect issues, and provide step-by-step reasoning. Use the format: <reasoning>...step-by-step analysis...</reasoning><answer>...concise answer...</answer>

[User]
Routing table:
S    172.254.73.0/24 [1/0] via Null0
O    88.232.0.0/23 [110/4] via 10.0.138.1, 00:05:28, GigabitEthernet0/0
O    172.254.124.0/25 [110/5] via 10.0.202.1, 00:03:35, GigabitEthernet0/1
O    94.189.0.0/17 [110/2] via 10.0.188.1, 00:05:23, GigabitEthernet0/0
C    192.168.43.0/24 is directly connected, GigabitEthernet0/0
C    10.0.107.0/24 is directly connected, GigabitEthernet0/1
O    17.114.224.0/20 [110/3] via 10.0.30.1, 00:02:21, GigabitEthernet0/0
O    10.162.210.128/26 [110/3] via 10.0.151.1, 00:04:25, GigabitEthernet0/0
O    188.237.192.0/19 [110/4] via 10.0.142.1, 00:03:51, GigabitEthernet0/0

Question: Analyze this routing table for traffic blackholing risks.

[Assistant]
<reasoning>
1. Observation: The routing table contains a static route 172.254.73.0/24 pointing to Null0.
2. Observation: Only 3 specific routes exist within the blackhole range: 172.254.174.0/25, 172.254.24.0/25, 172.254.124.0/25.
3. Analysis: A Null0 route is typically used for traffic filtering or BGP blackholing. However, if legitimate subnets within 172.254.73.0/24 are not explicitly routed with more specific prefixes, ALL traffic to those subnets will be dropped by the Null0 route. The Null0 route acts as a "discard" for anything matching its prefix that doesn't have a more specific route.
4. Impact: Any traffic to subnets within 172.254.73.0/24 that lack specific routes will be silently discarded. This is a common misconfiguration when administrators add Null0 routes for security but forget to add exceptions for active subnets.
5. Detection: The presence of a Null0 route with a broad prefix (24) combined with insufficient specific routes within that range indicates a potential blackhole.
6. Recommendation: Review the Null0 route necessity. If legitimate traffic should flow to subnets within 172.254.73.0/24, add specific routes for each active subnet with lower prefix lengths (more specific than /24). Alternatively, narrow the Null0 route to only cover truly unused address space.
</reasoning>
<answer>
CRITICAL: Static blackhole route detected. 172.254.73.0/24 is routed to Null0, which silently drops all matching traffic. Only 3 specific routes override this blackhole. Any traffic to unadvertised subnets within 172.254.73.0/24 will be lost. Fix: Add specific routes for all legitimate subnets within 172.254.73.0/24, or narrow the Null0 route to cover only unused address space. Verify with `show ip route 172.254.73.0/24` and `ping` tests.
</answer>


[System] You are a network routing expert. Analyze the routing table, detect issues, and provide step-by-step reasoning. Use the format: <reasoning>...step-by-step analysis...</reasoning><answer>...concise answer...</answer>

[User]
Routing table:
O    28.45.236.0/23 [110/2] via 10.0.89.1, 00:03:45, GigabitEthernet0/0
C    10.0.90.0/24 is directly connected, GigabitEthernet0/1
O    152.213.56.0/23 [110/2] via 10.0.152.1, 00:02:49, GigabitEthernet0/0
O    10.221.166.0/24 [110/3] via 10.0.107.1, 00:02:57, GigabitEthernet0/1
S    10.221.0.0/20 [1/0] via Null0
O    10.221.138.0/24 [110/2] via 10.0.5.1, 00:01:38, GigabitEthernet0/1
O    192.57.0.0/17 [110/3] via 10.0.196.1, 00:02:28, GigabitEthernet0/0
O    220.9.128.0/17 [110/4] via 10.0.34.1, 00:03:30, GigabitEthernet0/0
O    139.156.192.0/18 [110/4] via 10.0.185.1, 00:01:54, GigabitEthernet0/0
C    192.168.28.0/24 is directly connected, GigabitEthernet0/0

Question: What routing issues could cause network instability in this configuration?

[Assistant]
<reasoning>
1. Observation: The routing table contains a static route 10.221.0.0/20 pointing to Null0.
2. Observation: Only 3 specific routes exist within the blackhole range: 10.221.166.0/24, 10.221.233.0/24, 10.221.138.0/24.
3. Analysis: A Null0 route is typically used for traffic filtering or BGP blackholing. However, if legitimate subnets within 10.221.0.0/20 are not explicitly routed with more specific prefixes, ALL traffic to those subnets will be dropped by the Null0 route. The Null0 route acts as a "discard" for anything matching its prefix that doesn't have a more specific route.
4. Impact: Any traffic to subnets within 10.221.0.0/20 that lack specific routes will be silently discarded. This is a common misconfiguration when administrators add Null0 routes for security but forget to add exceptions for active subnets.
5. Detection: The presence of a Null0 route with a broad prefix (20) combined with insufficient specific routes within that range indicates a potential blackhole.
6. Recommendation: Review the Null0 route necessity. If legitimate traffic should flow to subnets within 10.221.0.0/20, add specific routes for each active subnet with lower prefix lengths (more specific than /20). Alternatively, narrow the Null0 route to only cover truly unused address space.
</reasoning>
<answer>
CRITICAL: Static blackhole route detected. 10.221.0.0/20 is routed to Null0, which silently drops all matching traffic. Only 3 specific routes override this blackhole. Any traffic to unadvertised subnets within 10.221.0.0/20 will be lost. Fix: Add specific routes for all legitimate subnets within 10.221.0.0/20, or narrow the Null0 route to cover only unused address space. Verify with `show ip route 10.221.0.0/20` and `ping` tests.
</answer>


[System] You are a network routing expert. Analyze the routing table, detect issues, and provide step-by-step reasoning. Use the format: <reasoning>...step-by-step analysis...</reasoning><answer>...concise answer...</answer>

[User]
Routing table:
O    54.174.2.180/30 [110/4] via 10.0.107.1, 00:03:28, GigabitEthernet0/0
O    74.74.0.0/17 [110/4] via 10.0.184.1, 00:01:44, GigabitEthernet0/0
O    172.139.118.0/25 [110/4] via 10.0.85.1, 00:03:58, GigabitEthernet0/1
O    10.120.26.152/30 [110/2] via 10.0.215.1, 00:05:40, GigabitEthernet0/0
S    172.139.0.0/22 [1/0] via Null0
O    35.47.152.0/22 [110/4] via 10.0.109.1, 00:05:51, GigabitEthernet0/0
O    90.63.46.160/29 [110/3] via 10.0.139.1, 00:05:54, GigabitEthernet0/0
C    10.0.191.0/24 is directly connected, GigabitEthernet0/1
C    192.168.147.0/24 is directly connected, GigabitEthernet0/0

Question: Does this routing table contain a routing blackhole?

[Assistant]
<reasoning>
1. Observation: The routing table contains a static route 172.139.0.0/22 pointing to Null0.
2. Observation: Only 1 specific routes exist within the blackhole range: 172.139.118.0/25.
3. Analysis: A Null0 route is typically used for traffic filtering or BGP blackholing. However, if legitimate subnets within 172.139.0.0/22 are not explicitly routed with more specific prefixes, ALL traffic to those subnets will be dropped by the Null0 route. The Null0 route acts as a "discard" for anything matching its prefix that doesn't have a more specific route.
4. Impact: Any traffic to subnets within 172.139.0.0/22 that lack specific routes will be silently discarded. This is a common misconfiguration when administrators add Null0 routes for security but forget to add exceptions for active subnets.
5. Detection: The presence of a Null0 route with a broad prefix (22) combined with insufficient specific routes within that range indicates a potential blackhole.
6. Recommendation: Review the Null0 route necessity. If legitimate traffic should flow to subnets within 172.139.0.0/22, add specific routes for each active subnet with lower prefix lengths (more specific than /22). Alternatively, narrow the Null0 route to only cover truly unused address space.
</reasoning>
<answer>
CRITICAL: Static blackhole route detected. 172.139.0.0/22 is routed to Null0, which silently drops all matching traffic. Only 1 specific routes override this blackhole. Any traffic to unadvertised subnets within 172.139.0.0/22 will be lost. Fix: Add specific routes for all legitimate subnets within 172.139.0.0/22, or narrow the Null0 route to cover only unused address space. Verify with `show ip route 172.139.0.0/22` and `ping` tests.
</answer>