Question 1 A regional gateway learns the same /24 from OSPF and an untracked floating static route with distance 5; OSPF stops being used although its neighbor remains healthy. Which corrective action most directly resolves the documented failure without suppressing unrelated safeguards? Increase the backup static route distance above the OSPF route's distance and tie it to reachability if appropriate. Lower the backup static route distance from 5 to 1 to make the secondary path more preferred. Verify primary next-hop resolution and remove or repair the unusable route rather than simply changing backup metrics. Align compatible EIGRP metric K-values on both peers after confirming design requirements. ExplanationCorrect Answer A:Increase the backup static route distance above the OSPF route's distance and tie it to reachability if appropriate. For identical prefixes the RIB selects the eligible route with lower administrative distance before comparing metrics of different protocols. Show the route using OSPF while primary reachability works and the backup static route taking over only under the tested failure. Other Answers B:Lowering that static distance would make the unwanted static route even more competitive and would not restore intended OSPF preference. The backup static route must have a distance above the OSPF route for the identical prefix. C:Verify primary next-hop resolution and remove or repair the unusable route rather than simply changing backup metrics. For identical prefixes the RIB selects the eligible route with lower administrative distance before comparing metrics of different protocols. D:Align compatible EIGRP metric K-values on both peers after confirming design requirements. For identical prefixes the RIB selects the eligible route with lower administrative distance before comparing metrics of different protocols.
Question 2 A regional gateway learns the same /24 from OSPF and an untracked floating static route with distance 5; OSPF stops being used although its neighbor remains healthy. Which technical mechanism best explains the behavior observed in this scenario? A configured static route can enter the RIB only when its next hop is resolvable, subject to platform and configuration conditions. For identical prefixes the RIB selects the eligible route with lower administrative distance before comparing metrics of different protocols. OSPF interface cost is always evaluated before a static route’s administrative distance. DUAL waits for replies before completing an active diffusing computation; missing replies can trigger SIA handling. ExplanationCorrect Answer B:For identical prefixes the RIB selects the eligible route with lower administrative distance before comparing metrics of different protocols. This explains why the initial condition produces the observed failure. The direct repair is: Increase the backup static route distance above the OSPF route's distance and tie it to reachability if appropriate. Validate through: Show the route using OSPF while primary reachability works and the backup static route taking over only under the tested failure. Other Answers A:A configured static route can enter the RIB only when its next hop is resolvable, subject to platform and configuration conditions. For identical prefixes the RIB selects the eligible route with lower administrative distance before comparing metrics of different protocols. C:OSPF cost selects among OSPF candidates, but route sources for an identical prefix are compared by administrative distance. With a lower static distance, the static candidate wins regardless of OSPF interface cost. D:DUAL waits for replies before completing an active diffusing computation; missing replies can trigger SIA handling. For identical prefixes the RIB selects the eligible route with lower administrative distance before comparing metrics of different protocols.
Question 3 A regional gateway learns the same /24 from OSPF and an untracked floating static route with distance 5; OSPF stops being used although its neighbor remains healthy. After applying the correction, which verification evidence most directly demonstrates that this issue is resolved? Inspect both candidate routes, their ADs, next-hop reachability and the winning RIB entry before and after the approved policy change. Check `show ip route` and recursive next-hop resolution while failing and restoring the primary link. Show the route using OSPF while primary reachability works and the backup static route taking over only under the tested failure. Inspect both interface timer values and confirm a stable FULL neighbor state after correction. ExplanationCorrect Answer C:Show the route using OSPF while primary reachability works and the backup static route taking over only under the tested failure. This checks the affected traffic or control-plane behavior, not merely a generic up/down indicator. The underlying mechanism is: For identical prefixes the RIB selects the eligible route with lower administrative distance before comparing metrics of different protocols. Other Answers A:Inspect both candidate routes, their ADs, next-hop reachability and the winning RIB entry before and after the approved policy change. For identical prefixes the RIB selects the eligible route with lower administrative distance before comparing metrics of different protocols. B:Check `show ip route` and recursive next-hop resolution while failing and restoring the primary link. For identical prefixes the RIB selects the eligible route with lower administrative distance before comparing metrics of different protocols. D:Inspect both interface timer values and confirm a stable FULL neighbor state after correction. For identical prefixes the RIB selects the eligible route with lower administrative distance before comparing metrics of different protocols.
Question 4 A regional gateway learns the same /24 from OSPF and an untracked floating static route with distance 5; OSPF stops being used although its neighbor remains healthy. Which lasting design or operational safeguard best prevents this particular issue from recurring? Include identical-prefix multi-protocol precedence in a routing acceptance test and maintain an AD matrix. Monitor next-hop reachability and pair failover design with tracking where the connected path alone cannot detect remote failure. Teach path-type hierarchy alongside cost tuning in OSPF policy review. Document protocol distance assumptions and test primary-to-backup route failover after changes. ExplanationCorrect Answer D:Document protocol distance assumptions and test primary-to-backup route failover after changes. This addresses the recurring cause: For identical prefixes the RIB selects the eligible route with lower administrative distance before comparing metrics of different protocols. A targeted acceptance check is: Show the route using OSPF while primary reachability works and the backup static route taking over only under the tested failure. Other Answers A:Include identical-prefix multi-protocol precedence in a routing acceptance test and maintain an AD matrix. For identical prefixes the RIB selects the eligible route with lower administrative distance before comparing metrics of different protocols. B:Monitor next-hop reachability and pair failover design with tracking where the connected path alone cannot detect remote failure. For identical prefixes the RIB selects the eligible route with lower administrative distance before comparing metrics of different protocols. C:Teach path-type hierarchy alongside cost tuning in OSPF policy review. For identical prefixes the RIB selects the eligible route with lower administrative distance before comparing metrics of different protocols.
Question 5 An edge router receives an eBGP route and an OSPF external route for an exact prefix; the team expects OSPF's lower cost to win but the BGP route installs. Which corrective action most directly resolves the documented failure without suppressing unrelated safeguards? Compare route administrative distances, then adjust the intended route preference at the correct source or policy boundary. Increase the backup static route distance above the OSPF route's distance and tie it to reachability if appropriate. Verify primary next-hop resolution and remove or repair the unusable route rather than simply changing backup metrics. Make both sides' area-type settings consistent with the approved stub-area design. ExplanationCorrect Answer A:Compare route administrative distances, then adjust the intended route preference at the correct source or policy boundary. A routing protocol's metric cannot outrank another protocol's better administrative distance for the exact same prefix. Inspect both candidate routes, their ADs, next-hop reachability and the winning RIB entry before and after the approved policy change. Other Answers B:Increase the backup static route distance above the OSPF route's distance and tie it to reachability if appropriate. A routing protocol's metric cannot outrank another protocol's better administrative distance for the exact same prefix. C:Verify primary next-hop resolution and remove or repair the unusable route rather than simply changing backup metrics. A routing protocol's metric cannot outrank another protocol's better administrative distance for the exact same prefix. D:Make both sides' area-type settings consistent with the approved stub-area design. A routing protocol's metric cannot outrank another protocol's better administrative distance for the exact same prefix.
Question 6 An edge router receives an eBGP route and an OSPF external route for an exact prefix; the team expects OSPF's lower cost to win but the BGP route installs. Which technical mechanism best explains the behavior observed in this scenario? A configured static route can enter the RIB only when its next hop is resolvable, subject to platform and configuration conditions. A routing protocol's metric cannot outrank another protocol's better administrative distance for the exact same prefix. For identical prefixes the RIB selects the eligible route with lower administrative distance before comparing metrics of different protocols. An up local interface does not establish end-to-end viability of the PBR-selected next hop. ExplanationCorrect Answer B:A routing protocol's metric cannot outrank another protocol's better administrative distance for the exact same prefix. This explains why the initial condition produces the observed failure. The direct repair is: Compare route administrative distances, then adjust the intended route preference at the correct source or policy boundary. Validate through: Inspect both candidate routes, their ADs, next-hop reachability and the winning RIB entry before and after the approved policy change. Other Answers A:A configured static route can enter the RIB only when its next hop is resolvable, subject to platform and configuration conditions. A routing protocol's metric cannot outrank another protocol's better administrative distance for the exact same prefix. C:For identical prefixes the RIB selects the eligible route with lower administrative distance before comparing metrics of different protocols. A routing protocol's metric cannot outrank another protocol's better administrative distance for the exact same prefix. D:An up local interface does not establish end-to-end viability of the PBR-selected next hop. A routing protocol's metric cannot outrank another protocol's better administrative distance for the exact same prefix.
Question 7 An edge router receives an eBGP route and an OSPF external route for an exact prefix; the team expects OSPF's lower cost to win but the BGP route installs. After applying the correction, which verification evidence most directly demonstrates that this issue is resolved? Show the route using OSPF while primary reachability works and the backup static route taking over only under the tested failure. Check `show ip route` and recursive next-hop resolution while failing and restoring the primary link. Inspect both candidate routes, their ADs, next-hop reachability and the winning RIB entry before and after the approved policy change. Check network-type output, selected DR, and actual spoke route reachability after redesign. ExplanationCorrect Answer C:Inspect both candidate routes, their ADs, next-hop reachability and the winning RIB entry before and after the approved policy change. This checks the affected traffic or control-plane behavior, not merely a generic up/down indicator. The underlying mechanism is: A routing protocol's metric cannot outrank another protocol's better administrative distance for the exact same prefix. Other Answers A:Show the route using OSPF while primary reachability works and the backup static route taking over only under the tested failure. A routing protocol's metric cannot outrank another protocol's better administrative distance for the exact same prefix. B:Check `show ip route` and recursive next-hop resolution while failing and restoring the primary link. A routing protocol's metric cannot outrank another protocol's better administrative distance for the exact same prefix. D:Check network-type output, selected DR, and actual spoke route reachability after redesign. A routing protocol's metric cannot outrank another protocol's better administrative distance for the exact same prefix.
Question 8 An edge router receives an eBGP route and an OSPF external route for an exact prefix; the team expects OSPF's lower cost to win but the BGP route installs. Which lasting design or operational safeguard best prevents this particular issue from recurring? Monitor next-hop reachability and pair failover design with tracking where the connected path alone cannot detect remote failure. Document protocol distance assumptions and test primary-to-backup route failover after changes. Maintain route ownership and tag/filter policy at each redistribution boundary with bidirectional loop tests. Include identical-prefix multi-protocol precedence in a routing acceptance test and maintain an AD matrix. ExplanationCorrect Answer D:Include identical-prefix multi-protocol precedence in a routing acceptance test and maintain an AD matrix. This addresses the recurring cause: A routing protocol's metric cannot outrank another protocol's better administrative distance for the exact same prefix. A targeted acceptance check is: Inspect both candidate routes, their ADs, next-hop reachability and the winning RIB entry before and after the approved policy change. Other Answers A:Monitor next-hop reachability and pair failover design with tracking where the connected path alone cannot detect remote failure. A routing protocol's metric cannot outrank another protocol's better administrative distance for the exact same prefix. B:Document protocol distance assumptions and test primary-to-backup route failover after changes. A routing protocol's metric cannot outrank another protocol's better administrative distance for the exact same prefix. C:Maintain route ownership and tag/filter policy at each redistribution boundary with bidirectional loop tests. A routing protocol's metric cannot outrank another protocol's better administrative distance for the exact same prefix.
Question 9 Two static routes to a remote /24 exist: the primary has distance 1 but points to an unreachable next hop, while a backup has distance 200 and is reachable. Which corrective action most directly resolves the documented failure without suppressing unrelated safeguards? Verify primary next-hop resolution and remove or repair the unusable route rather than simply changing backup metrics. Increase the backup static route distance above the OSPF route's distance and tie it to reachability if appropriate. Compare route administrative distances, then adjust the intended route preference at the correct source or policy boundary. Validate AS-path prepending from external peers and treat it as a remote-inbound influence rather than a guaranteed local choice. ExplanationCorrect Answer A:Verify primary next-hop resolution and remove or repair the unusable route rather than simply changing backup metrics. A configured static route can enter the RIB only when its next hop is resolvable, subject to platform and configuration conditions. Check `show ip route` and recursive next-hop resolution while failing and restoring the primary link. Other Answers B:Increase the backup static route distance above the OSPF route's distance and tie it to reachability if appropriate. A configured static route can enter the RIB only when its next hop is resolvable, subject to platform and configuration conditions. C:Compare route administrative distances, then adjust the intended route preference at the correct source or policy boundary. A configured static route can enter the RIB only when its next hop is resolvable, subject to platform and configuration conditions. D:Validate AS-path prepending from external peers and treat it as a remote-inbound influence rather than a guaranteed local choice. A configured static route can enter the RIB only when its next hop is resolvable, subject to platform and configuration conditions.
Question 10 Two static routes to a remote /24 exist: the primary has distance 1 but points to an unreachable next hop, while a backup has distance 200 and is reachable. Which technical mechanism best explains the behavior observed in this scenario? For identical prefixes the RIB selects the eligible route with lower administrative distance before comparing metrics of different protocols. A configured static route can enter the RIB only when its next hop is resolvable, subject to platform and configuration conditions. A routing protocol's metric cannot outrank another protocol's better administrative distance for the exact same prefix. Unfiltered redistribution can leak internal connected routes regardless of whether they are useful or appropriate externally. ExplanationCorrect Answer B:A configured static route can enter the RIB only when its next hop is resolvable, subject to platform and configuration conditions. This explains why the initial condition produces the observed failure. The direct repair is: Verify primary next-hop resolution and remove or repair the unusable route rather than simply changing backup metrics. Validate through: Check `show ip route` and recursive next-hop resolution while failing and restoring the primary link. Other Answers A:For identical prefixes the RIB selects the eligible route with lower administrative distance before comparing metrics of different protocols. A configured static route can enter the RIB only when its next hop is resolvable, subject to platform and configuration conditions. C:A routing protocol's metric cannot outrank another protocol's better administrative distance for the exact same prefix. A configured static route can enter the RIB only when its next hop is resolvable, subject to platform and configuration conditions. D:Unfiltered redistribution can leak internal connected routes regardless of whether they are useful or appropriate externally. A configured static route can enter the RIB only when its next hop is resolvable, subject to platform and configuration conditions.
