Exercise 3: A Silent Hop Surrounded by Normal Hops — Possible Solution
====================================================================

WHY THIS ISN'T PROOF OF A PROBLEM AT HOP 6
------------------------------
Per this chapter's own worked traceroute example, a hop showing three
asterisks while hops on either side of it respond normally, and the
trace still reaches the destination, is described as "a genuinely
common, non-broken pattern: many routers are configured to rate-limit
or simply not generate the ICMP 'time exceeded' messages traceroute
depends on, even while forwarding the actual traffic through them
perfectly normally." The router at hop 6 not answering the traceroute
probe is not the same thing as that router failing to forward traffic.

WHAT THIS CHAPTER SAYS ACTUALLY MATTERS
------------------------------
Per this chapter's warn-box, "what actually matters is whether the
trace reaches the destination at all, and whether packet loss or
timeouts persist consistently at or beyond a specific hop across
repeated runs - not a single silent hop with normal hops on either
side of it." Since the trace in this scenario does reach the
destination, and only one hop out of several is silent, the pattern
matches the chapter's own described non-broken case exactly.

WHAT WOULD BE MORE CONVINCING EVIDENCE
------------------------------
Evidence that would actually support a real problem at or beyond hop 6
would be: the trace failing to reach the destination at all, packet
loss appearing consistently from hop 6 onward across multiple repeated
runs, or every hop after hop 6 also going silent rather than just the
one isolated hop.

WHY THIS WORKS AS AN ANSWER
------------------------------
It correctly applies the chapter's own stated non-broken pattern to
this specific scenario (silent hop, normal hops around it, successful
arrival), and names concrete evidence the chapter itself points to
(persistent loss beyond a hop, across repeated runs) rather than just
asserting the hop is fine without justification.