Question 90 A branch route stays Active during a WAN failure because queries spread into dozens of leaf sites that should never provide transit routes. Which technical mechanism best explains the behavior observed in this scenario? A feasible path in the local topology does not guarantee its more-specific prefix is advertised past outbound policy. Stub operation bounds query propagation through nontransit spokes and can reduce stuck-in-active exposure. Passive EIGRP interfaces do not transmit the neighbor discovery traffic needed for a routing adjacency. Split horizon ordinarily prevents re-advertising a route out the interface on which it was learned. ExplanationCorrect Answer B:Stub operation bounds query propagation through nontransit spokes and can reduce stuck-in-active exposure. This explains why the initial condition produces the observed failure. The direct repair is: Configure appropriate EIGRP stub behavior at the leaf routers and verify expected advertised route categories. Validate through: Verify stub neighbor status and that query propagation no longer crosses the leaf sites during a controlled failover. Other Answers A:A feasible path in the local topology does not guarantee its more-specific prefix is advertised past outbound policy. Stub operation bounds query propagation through nontransit spokes and can reduce stuck-in-active exposure. C:Passive EIGRP interfaces do not transmit the neighbor discovery traffic needed for a routing adjacency. Stub operation bounds query propagation through nontransit spokes and can reduce stuck-in-active exposure. D:Split horizon ordinarily prevents re-advertising a route out the interface on which it was learned. Stub operation bounds query propagation through nontransit spokes and can reduce stuck-in-active exposure.
Question 91 A branch route stays Active during a WAN failure because queries spread into dozens of leaf sites that should never provide transit routes. After applying the correction, which verification evidence most directly demonstrates that this issue is resolved? Inspect EIGRP authentication debugging and verify stable neighbor establishment after aligned keys. Inspect both installed EIGRP next hops and controlled flow distribution after changing supported settings. Verify stub neighbor status and that query propagation no longer crosses the leaf sites during a controlled failover. Compare RD, FD and computed metrics and show only the eligible path entering the routing table. ExplanationCorrect Answer C:Verify stub neighbor status and that query propagation no longer crosses the leaf sites during a controlled failover. This checks the affected traffic or control-plane behavior, not merely a generic up/down indicator. The underlying mechanism is: Stub operation bounds query propagation through nontransit spokes and can reduce stuck-in-active exposure. Other Answers A:Inspect EIGRP authentication debugging and verify stable neighbor establishment after aligned keys. Stub operation bounds query propagation through nontransit spokes and can reduce stuck-in-active exposure. B:Inspect both installed EIGRP next hops and controlled flow distribution after changing supported settings. Stub operation bounds query propagation through nontransit spokes and can reduce stuck-in-active exposure. D:Compare RD, FD and computed metrics and show only the eligible path entering the routing table. Stub operation bounds query propagation through nontransit spokes and can reduce stuck-in-active exposure.
Question 92 A branch route stays Active during a WAN failure because queries spread into dozens of leaf sites that should never provide transit routes. Which lasting design or operational safeguard best prevents this particular issue from recurring? Use explicit transit-interface exception lists for passive-interface default configurations. Define documented unequal-cost load-balancing policy and validate it on the target software version. Review summary and distribution policies jointly when adding backup path capacity. Classify EIGRP sites by transit role and keep stub policies consistent with their advertised routes. ExplanationCorrect Answer D:Classify EIGRP sites by transit role and keep stub policies consistent with their advertised routes. This addresses the recurring cause: Stub operation bounds query propagation through nontransit spokes and can reduce stuck-in-active exposure. A targeted acceptance check is: Verify stub neighbor status and that query propagation no longer crosses the leaf sites during a controlled failover. Other Answers A:Use explicit transit-interface exception lists for passive-interface default configurations. Stub operation bounds query propagation through nontransit spokes and can reduce stuck-in-active exposure. B:Define documented unequal-cost load-balancing policy and validate it on the target software version. Stub operation bounds query propagation through nontransit spokes and can reduce stuck-in-active exposure. C:Review summary and distribution policies jointly when adding backup path capacity. Stub operation bounds query propagation through nontransit spokes and can reduce stuck-in-active exposure.
Question 93 Two EIGRP paths are present but a route with a higher metric is not used, even though the router has a variance command configured. Which corrective action most directly resolves the documented failure without suppressing unrelated safeguards? Check the variance ratio and feasible-successor condition rather than assuming variance bypasses DUAL loop checks. Bind the intended EIGRP IPv6 address family to the correct VRF context and verify interface membership. Align compatible EIGRP metric K-values on both peers after confirming design requirements. Correct the interface bandwidth reference and validate EIGRP composite metric components, not the physical speed alone. ExplanationCorrect Answer A:Check the variance ratio and feasible-successor condition rather than assuming variance bypasses DUAL loop checks. Unequal-cost EIGRP load balancing is constrained by feasible-successor eligibility as well as variance limits. Compare RD, FD and computed metrics and show only the eligible path entering the routing table. Other Answers B:Bind the intended EIGRP IPv6 address family to the correct VRF context and verify interface membership. Unequal-cost EIGRP load balancing is constrained by feasible-successor eligibility as well as variance limits. C:Align compatible EIGRP metric K-values on both peers after confirming design requirements. Unequal-cost EIGRP load balancing is constrained by feasible-successor eligibility as well as variance limits. D:Correct the interface bandwidth reference and validate EIGRP composite metric components, not the physical speed alone. Unequal-cost EIGRP load balancing is constrained by feasible-successor eligibility as well as variance limits.
Question 94 Two EIGRP paths are present but a route with a higher metric is not used, even though the router has a variance command configured. Which technical mechanism best explains the behavior observed in this scenario? Passive EIGRP interfaces do not transmit the neighbor discovery traffic needed for a routing adjacency. Unequal-cost EIGRP load balancing is constrained by feasible-successor eligibility as well as variance limits. EIGRP's feasible condition requires the neighbor's reported distance to be strictly less than the current feasible distance. EIGRP neighborship requires compatible AS or address-family settings on participating interfaces. ExplanationCorrect Answer B:Unequal-cost EIGRP load balancing is constrained by feasible-successor eligibility as well as variance limits. This explains why the initial condition produces the observed failure. The direct repair is: Check the variance ratio and feasible-successor condition rather than assuming variance bypasses DUAL loop checks. Validate through: Compare RD, FD and computed metrics and show only the eligible path entering the routing table. Other Answers A:Passive EIGRP interfaces do not transmit the neighbor discovery traffic needed for a routing adjacency. Unequal-cost EIGRP load balancing is constrained by feasible-successor eligibility as well as variance limits. C:EIGRP's feasible condition requires the neighbor's reported distance to be strictly less than the current feasible distance. Unequal-cost EIGRP load balancing is constrained by feasible-successor eligibility as well as variance limits. D:EIGRP neighborship requires compatible AS or address-family settings on participating interfaces. Unequal-cost EIGRP load balancing is constrained by feasible-successor eligibility as well as variance limits.
Question 95 Two EIGRP paths are present but a route with a higher metric is not used, even though the router has a variance command configured. After applying the correction, which verification evidence most directly demonstrates that this issue is resolved? Compare effective interface bandwidth/delay and resultant route metric before and after correction. Verify stub neighbor status and that query propagation no longer crosses the leaf sites during a controlled failover. Compare RD, FD and computed metrics and show only the eligible path entering the routing table. Display expected IPv6 routes in the tenant VRF and none leaked into the global table. ExplanationCorrect Answer C:Compare RD, FD and computed metrics and show only the eligible path entering the routing table. This checks the affected traffic or control-plane behavior, not merely a generic up/down indicator. The underlying mechanism is: Unequal-cost EIGRP load balancing is constrained by feasible-successor eligibility as well as variance limits. Other Answers A:Compare effective interface bandwidth/delay and resultant route metric before and after correction. Unequal-cost EIGRP load balancing is constrained by feasible-successor eligibility as well as variance limits. B:Verify stub neighbor status and that query propagation no longer crosses the leaf sites during a controlled failover. Unequal-cost EIGRP load balancing is constrained by feasible-successor eligibility as well as variance limits. D:Display expected IPv6 routes in the tenant VRF and none leaked into the global table. Unequal-cost EIGRP load balancing is constrained by feasible-successor eligibility as well as variance limits.
Question 96 Two EIGRP paths are present but a route with a higher metric is not used, even though the router has a variance command configured. Which lasting design or operational safeguard best prevents this particular issue from recurring? Test IPv4 and IPv6 address families independently during named-mode migration. Use explicit transit-interface exception lists for passive-interface default configurations. Classify EIGRP sites by transit role and keep stub policies consistent with their advertised routes. Document feasibility and variance checks in the multipath deployment standard. ExplanationCorrect Answer D:Document feasibility and variance checks in the multipath deployment standard. This addresses the recurring cause: Unequal-cost EIGRP load balancing is constrained by feasible-successor eligibility as well as variance limits. A targeted acceptance check is: Compare RD, FD and computed metrics and show only the eligible path entering the routing table. Other Answers A:Test IPv4 and IPv6 address families independently during named-mode migration. Unequal-cost EIGRP load balancing is constrained by feasible-successor eligibility as well as variance limits. B:Use explicit transit-interface exception lists for passive-interface default configurations. Unequal-cost EIGRP load balancing is constrained by feasible-successor eligibility as well as variance limits. C:Classify EIGRP sites by transit role and keep stub policies consistent with their advertised routes. Unequal-cost EIGRP load balancing is constrained by feasible-successor eligibility as well as variance limits.
Question 97 Traffic balances equally across two EIGRP next hops that have very different physical rates; the engineer wants proportional forwarding without manipulating topology. Which corrective action most directly resolves the documented failure without suppressing unrelated safeguards? Verify platform support and the EIGRP traffic-share behavior and metric inputs rather than changing BGP attributes. Remove unintended passive treatment for the transit interface while keeping LAN interfaces passive as planned. Do not treat this backup as a feasible successor; verify an alternative path or allow query-based recalculation. Enable the intended IPv6 address-family and its interface activation in the named EIGRP configuration. ExplanationCorrect Answer A:Verify platform support and the EIGRP traffic-share behavior and metric inputs rather than changing BGP attributes. EIGRP variance and traffic-share mechanisms can influence unequal-cost path installation and forwarding. Inspect both installed EIGRP next hops and controlled flow distribution after changing supported settings. Other Answers B:Remove unintended passive treatment for the transit interface while keeping LAN interfaces passive as planned. EIGRP variance and traffic-share mechanisms can influence unequal-cost path installation and forwarding. C:Do not treat this backup as a feasible successor; verify an alternative path or allow query-based recalculation. EIGRP variance and traffic-share mechanisms can influence unequal-cost path installation and forwarding. D:Enable the intended IPv6 address-family and its interface activation in the named EIGRP configuration. EIGRP variance and traffic-share mechanisms can influence unequal-cost path installation and forwarding.
Question 98 Traffic balances equally across two EIGRP next hops that have very different physical rates; the engineer wants proportional forwarding without manipulating topology. Which technical mechanism best explains the behavior observed in this scenario? Stub operation bounds query propagation through nontransit spokes and can reduce stuck-in-active exposure. EIGRP variance and traffic-share mechanisms can influence unequal-cost path installation and forwarding. EIGRP's feasible condition requires the neighbor's reported distance to be strictly less than the current feasible distance. Authentication failure causes otherwise correctly addressed EIGRP hello packets to be rejected rather than forming a neighbor. ExplanationCorrect Answer B:EIGRP variance and traffic-share mechanisms can influence unequal-cost path installation and forwarding. This explains why the initial condition produces the observed failure. The direct repair is: Verify platform support and the EIGRP traffic-share behavior and metric inputs rather than changing BGP attributes. Validate through: Inspect both installed EIGRP next hops and controlled flow distribution after changing supported settings. Other Answers A:Stub operation bounds query propagation through nontransit spokes and can reduce stuck-in-active exposure. EIGRP variance and traffic-share mechanisms can influence unequal-cost path installation and forwarding. C:EIGRP's feasible condition requires the neighbor's reported distance to be strictly less than the current feasible distance. EIGRP variance and traffic-share mechanisms can influence unequal-cost path installation and forwarding. D:Authentication failure causes otherwise correctly addressed EIGRP hello packets to be rejected rather than forming a neighbor. EIGRP variance and traffic-share mechanisms can influence unequal-cost path installation and forwarding.
Question 99 Traffic balances equally across two EIGRP next hops that have very different physical rates; the engineer wants proportional forwarding without manipulating topology. After applying the correction, which verification evidence most directly demonstrates that this issue is resolved? Inspect EIGRP authentication debugging and verify stable neighbor establishment after aligned keys. Correlate the active topology entry, outstanding queries, neighbor resets and underlying transport loss. Inspect both installed EIGRP next hops and controlled flow distribution after changing supported settings. Display expected IPv6 routes in the tenant VRF and none leaked into the global table. ExplanationCorrect Answer C:Inspect both installed EIGRP next hops and controlled flow distribution after changing supported settings. This checks the affected traffic or control-plane behavior, not merely a generic up/down indicator. The underlying mechanism is: EIGRP variance and traffic-share mechanisms can influence unequal-cost path installation and forwarding. Other Answers A:Inspect EIGRP authentication debugging and verify stable neighbor establishment after aligned keys. EIGRP variance and traffic-share mechanisms can influence unequal-cost path installation and forwarding. B:Correlate the active topology entry, outstanding queries, neighbor resets and underlying transport loss. EIGRP variance and traffic-share mechanisms can influence unequal-cost path installation and forwarding. D:Display expected IPv6 routes in the tenant VRF and none leaked into the global table. EIGRP variance and traffic-share mechanisms can influence unequal-cost path installation and forwarding.
Question 100 Traffic balances equally across two EIGRP next hops that have very different physical rates; the engineer wants proportional forwarding without manipulating topology. Which lasting design or operational safeguard best prevents this particular issue from recurring? Match all EIGRP AFs and VRF bindings to documented tenant routing boundaries. Review summary and distribution policies jointly when adding backup path capacity. Record hub-spoke network type and split-horizon requirements in the overlay baseline. Define documented unequal-cost load-balancing policy and validate it on the target software version. ExplanationCorrect Answer D:Define documented unequal-cost load-balancing policy and validate it on the target software version. This addresses the recurring cause: EIGRP variance and traffic-share mechanisms can influence unequal-cost path installation and forwarding. A targeted acceptance check is: Inspect both installed EIGRP next hops and controlled flow distribution after changing supported settings. Other Answers A:Match all EIGRP AFs and VRF bindings to documented tenant routing boundaries. EIGRP variance and traffic-share mechanisms can influence unequal-cost path installation and forwarding. B:Review summary and distribution policies jointly when adding backup path capacity. EIGRP variance and traffic-share mechanisms can influence unequal-cost path installation and forwarding. C:Record hub-spoke network type and split-horizon requirements in the overlay baseline. EIGRP variance and traffic-share mechanisms can influence unequal-cost path installation and forwarding.
