This program attempts to trace the route an IP packet would follow to
     some internet host by launching UDP probe packets with a small ttl (time
     to live) then listening for an ICMP "time exceeded" reply from a gateway.
     We start our probes with a ttl of one and increase by one until we get an
     ICMP "port unreachable" (which means we got to "host") or hit a max
     (which defaults to net.inet.ip.ttl hops & can be changed with the -m
     flag).  Three probes (changed with -q flag) are sent at each ttl setting
     and a line is printed showing the ttl, address of the gateway and round
     trip time of each probe.  If the probe answers come from different gate-
     ways, the address of each responding system will be printed.  If there is
     no response within a 5 sec. timeout interval (changed with the -w flag),
     a "*" is printed for that probe.

     We don't want the destination host to process the UDP probe packets so
     the destination port is set to an unlikely value (if some clod on the
     destination is using that value, it can be changed with the -p flag).

     A sample use and output might be:

     [yak 71]% traceroute nis.nsf.net.
     traceroute to nis.nsf.net (35.1.1.48), 64 hops max, 38 byte packet
     1  helios.ee.lbl.gov (128.3.112.1)  19 ms  19 ms  0 ms
     2  lilac-dmc.Berkeley.EDU (128.32.216.1)  39 ms  39 ms  19 ms
     3  lilac-dmc.Berkeley.EDU (128.32.216.1)  39 ms  39 ms  19 ms
     4  ccngw-ner-cc.Berkeley.EDU (128.32.136.23)  39 ms  40 ms  39 ms
     5  ccn-nerif22.Berkeley.EDU (128.32.168.22)  39 ms  39 ms  39 ms
     6  128.32.197.4 (128.32.197.4)  40 ms  59 ms  59 ms
     7  131.119.2.5 (131.119.2.5)  59 ms  59 ms  59 ms
     8  129.140.70.13 (129.140.70.13)  99 ms  99 ms  80 ms
     9  129.140.71.6 (129.140.71.6)  139 ms  239 ms  319 ms
     10  129.140.81.7 (129.140.81.7)  220 ms  199 ms  199 ms
     11  nic.merit.edu (35.1.1.48)  239 ms  239 ms  239 ms

     Note that lines 2 & 3 are the same.  This is due to a buggy kernel on the
     2nd hop system - lbl-csam.arpa - that forwards packets with a zero ttl (a
     bug in the distributed version of 4.3 BSD).  Note that you have to guess
     what path the packets are taking cross-country since the NSFNet (129.140)
     doesn't supply address-to-name translations for its NSSes.

     A more interesting example is:

     [yak 72]% traceroute allspice.lcs.mit.edu.
     traceroute to allspice.lcs.mit.edu (18.26.0.115), 64 hops max
     1  helios.ee.lbl.gov (128.3.112.1)  0 ms  0 ms  0 ms
     2  lilac-dmc.Berkeley.EDU (128.32.216.1)  19 ms  19 ms  19 ms
     3  lilac-dmc.Berkeley.EDU (128.32.216.1)  39 ms  19 ms  19 ms
     4  ccngw-ner-cc.Berkeley.EDU (128.32.136.23)  19 ms  39 ms  39 ms
     5  ccn-nerif22.Berkeley.EDU (128.32.168.22)  20 ms  39 ms  39 ms
     6  128.32.197.4 (128.32.197.4)  59 ms  119 ms  39 ms
     7  131.119.2.5 (131.119.2.5)  59 ms  59 ms  39 ms
     8  129.140.70.13 (129.140.70.13)  80 ms  79 ms  99 ms
     9  129.140.71.6 (129.140.71.6)  139 ms  139 ms  159 ms
     10  129.140.81.7 (129.140.81.7)  199 ms  180 ms  300 ms
     11  129.140.72.17 (129.140.72.17)  300 ms  239 ms  239 ms
     12  * * *
     13  128.121.54.72 (128.121.54.72)  259 ms  499 ms  279 ms
     14  * * *
     15  * * *
     16  * * *
     17  * * *
     18  ALLSPICE.LCS.MIT.EDU (18.26.0.115)  339 ms  279 ms  279 ms

     Note that the gateways 12, 14, 15, 16 & 17 hops away either don't send
     ICMP "time exceeded" messages or send them with a ttl too small to reach
     us.  14 - 17 are running the MIT C Gateway code that doesn't send "time
     exceeded"s.  God only knows what's going on with 12.

     The silent gateway 12 in the above may be the result of a bug in the
     4.[23] BSD network code (and its derivatives):  4.x (x <= 3) sends an
     unreachable message using whatever ttl remains in the original datagram.
     Since, for gateways, the remaining ttl is zero, the ICMP "time exceeded"
     is guaranteed to not make it back to us.  The behavior of this bug is
     slightly more interesting when it appears on the destination system:

     1  helios.ee.lbl.gov (128.3.112.1)  0 ms  0 ms  0 ms
     2  lilac-dmc.Berkeley.EDU (128.32.216.1)  39 ms  19 ms  39 ms
     3  lilac-dmc.Berkeley.EDU (128.32.216.1)  19 ms  39 ms  19 ms
     4  ccngw-ner-cc.Berkeley.EDU (128.32.136.23)  39 ms  40 ms  19 ms
     5  ccn-nerif35.Berkeley.EDU (128.32.168.35)  39 ms  39 ms  39 ms
     6  csgw.Berkeley.EDU (128.32.133.254)  39 ms  59 ms  39 ms
     7  * * *
     8  * * *
     9  * * *
     10  * * *
     11  * * *
     12  * * *
     13  rip.Berkeley.EDU (128.32.131.22)  59 ms !  39 ms !  39 ms !

     Notice that there are 12 "gateways" (13 is the final destination) and
     exactly the last half of them are "missing".  What's really happening is
     that rip (a Sun-3 running Sun OS3.5) is using the ttl from our arriving
     datagram as the ttl in its ICMP reply.  So, the reply will time out on
     the return path (with no notice sent to anyone since ICMP's aren't sent
     for ICMP's) until we probe with a ttl that's at least twice the path
     length.  I.e., rip is really only 7 hops away.  A reply that returns with
     a ttl of 1 is a clue this problem exists.  Traceroute prints a "!" after
     the time if the ttl is <= 1.  Since vendors ship a lot of obsolete (DEC's
     Ultrix, Sun 3.x) or non-standard (HPUX) software, expect to see this
     problem frequently and/or take care picking the target host of your
     probes.

     Other possible annotations after the time are !H, !N, or !P (host, net-
     work or protocol unreachable), !S (source route failed), !F (fragmenta-
     tion needed - the RFC1191 Path MTU Discovery value is displayed), !X
     (communication administratively prohibited), !V (host precedence viola-
     tion), !C (precedence cutoff in effect), or ! (ICMP unreachable code
     ).  These are defined by RFC1812 (which supersedes RFC1716).  If
     almost all the probes result in some kind of unreachable, traceroute will
     give up and exit.

     This program is intended for use in network testing, measurement and man-
     agement.  It should be used primarily for manual fault isolation.
     Because of the load it could impose on the network, it is unwise to use
     traceroute during normal operations or from automated scripts.