As mentioned earlier, route poisoning does
not solve the counting-to-infinity problem.
Counting-to-infinity can occur when one
router has a valid metric that points to an
address that is reachable through an
intermediate router while the intermediate
router has an infinite-distance route to the
same address (see Figure 4.1). If routing
table updates are sent by both routers at the
same in time, the intermediate router will
advertise that the route to the destination address is an infinite-distance route while the other router will
advertise that the route has a valid metric. Because the two routers use the same update interval between
updates, this process repeats itself with the next routing update, with the difference that the valid metric will
be incremented by 1 each time until an infinite metric is reached, hence this phenomenon is called counting
to infinity.

FIGURE: Count To Infinity
Split horizon solves the counting-to-infinity problem by preventing a router from sending routing updates
out the same interface on which it learnt the route. Thus, in Figure 4.1, the router would have learnt the route
to the destination address across the link from the intermediate router. With split horizon, that router cannot
then send advertisements about the route to the destination address out across the same link. Therefore the
intermediate router will not receive the valid metric from the route to the destination address from the other
router ad the count to infinity problem will not occur, solving the count-to-infinity problem on a single link.