Question 120 Two EIGRP peers have matching AS numbers but configured K-value sets differ, and a neighbor repeatedly resets. 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. Classify EIGRP sites by transit role and keep stub policies consistent with their advertised routes. Manage shared routing authentication secrets and rollover lifetimes as one coordinated change. Keep metric K-value configuration uniform across each EIGRP domain. ExplanationCorrect Answer D:Keep metric K-value configuration uniform across each EIGRP domain. This addresses the recurring cause: EIGRP neighbors must agree on metric weighting parameters; incompatible K-values stop a stable adjacency. A targeted acceptance check is: Use the neighbor and protocol displays to confirm K-value agreement and stable route exchange. Other Answers A:Match all EIGRP AFs and VRF bindings to documented tenant routing boundaries. EIGRP neighbors must agree on metric weighting parameters; incompatible K-values stop a stable adjacency. B:Classify EIGRP sites by transit role and keep stub policies consistent with their advertised routes. EIGRP neighbors must agree on metric weighting parameters; incompatible K-values stop a stable adjacency. C:Manage shared routing authentication secrets and rollover lifetimes as one coordinated change. EIGRP neighbors must agree on metric weighting parameters; incompatible K-values stop a stable adjacency.
Question 121 A hub receives an EIGRP route from one spoke but refuses to advertise it to another spoke over the same multipoint interface. Which corrective action most directly resolves the documented failure without suppressing unrelated safeguards? Review split horizon on the hub multipoint interface and apply the design-appropriate exception only where needed. Bind the intended EIGRP IPv6 address family to the correct VRF context and verify interface membership. Remove unintended passive treatment for the transit interface while keeping LAN interfaces passive as planned. Check EIGRP distribute lists and summary advertisements toward that downstream neighbor. ExplanationCorrect Answer A:Review split horizon on the hub multipoint interface and apply the design-appropriate exception only where needed. Split horizon ordinarily prevents re-advertising a route out the interface on which it was learned. Show spoke-to-spoke route propagation on the hub after the targeted split-horizon design change. Other Answers B:Bind the intended EIGRP IPv6 address family to the correct VRF context and verify interface membership. Split horizon ordinarily prevents re-advertising a route out the interface on which it was learned. C:Remove unintended passive treatment for the transit interface while keeping LAN interfaces passive as planned. Split horizon ordinarily prevents re-advertising a route out the interface on which it was learned. D:Check EIGRP distribute lists and summary advertisements toward that downstream neighbor. Split horizon ordinarily prevents re-advertising a route out the interface on which it was learned.
Question 122 A hub receives an EIGRP route from one spoke but refuses to advertise it to another spoke over the same multipoint interface. Which technical mechanism best explains the behavior observed in this scenario? EIGRP default metric calculation uses configured bandwidth and delay inputs rather than measuring instantaneous line throughput. Split horizon ordinarily prevents re-advertising a route out the interface on which it was learned. 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:Split horizon ordinarily prevents re-advertising a route out the interface on which it was learned. This explains why the initial condition produces the observed failure. The direct repair is: Review split horizon on the hub multipoint interface and apply the design-appropriate exception only where needed. Validate through: Show spoke-to-spoke route propagation on the hub after the targeted split-horizon design change. Other Answers A:EIGRP default metric calculation uses configured bandwidth and delay inputs rather than measuring instantaneous line throughput. Split horizon ordinarily prevents re-advertising a route out the interface on which it was learned. C:EIGRP's feasible condition requires the neighbor's reported distance to be strictly less than the current feasible distance. Split horizon ordinarily prevents re-advertising a route out the interface on which it was learned. D:Authentication failure causes otherwise correctly addressed EIGRP hello packets to be rejected rather than forming a neighbor. Split horizon ordinarily prevents re-advertising a route out the interface on which it was learned.
Question 123 A hub receives an EIGRP route from one spoke but refuses to advertise it to another spoke over the same multipoint interface. 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. Inspect EIGRP authentication debugging and verify stable neighbor establishment after aligned keys. Show spoke-to-spoke route propagation on the hub after the targeted split-horizon design change. Compare RD, FD and computed metrics and show only the eligible path entering the routing table. ExplanationCorrect Answer C:Show spoke-to-spoke route propagation on the hub after the targeted split-horizon design change. This checks the affected traffic or control-plane behavior, not merely a generic up/down indicator. The underlying mechanism is: Split horizon ordinarily prevents re-advertising a route out the interface on which it was learned. Other Answers A:Compare effective interface bandwidth/delay and resultant route metric before and after correction. Split horizon ordinarily prevents re-advertising a route out the interface on which it was learned. B:Inspect EIGRP authentication debugging and verify stable neighbor establishment after aligned keys. Split horizon ordinarily prevents re-advertising a route out the interface on which it was learned. D:Compare RD, FD and computed metrics and show only the eligible path entering the routing table. Split horizon ordinarily prevents re-advertising a route out the interface on which it was learned.
Question 124 A hub receives an EIGRP route from one spoke but refuses to advertise it to another spoke over the same multipoint interface. Which lasting design or operational safeguard best prevents this particular issue from recurring? Bound query scope with hierarchy or stubs and monitor routing-control plane congestion. Classify EIGRP sites by transit role and keep stub policies consistent with their advertised routes. Keep metric K-value configuration uniform across each EIGRP domain. Record hub-spoke network type and split-horizon requirements in the overlay baseline. ExplanationCorrect Answer D:Record hub-spoke network type and split-horizon requirements in the overlay baseline. This addresses the recurring cause: Split horizon ordinarily prevents re-advertising a route out the interface on which it was learned. A targeted acceptance check is: Show spoke-to-spoke route propagation on the hub after the targeted split-horizon design change. Other Answers A:Bound query scope with hierarchy or stubs and monitor routing-control plane congestion. Split horizon ordinarily prevents re-advertising a route out the interface on which it was learned. B:Classify EIGRP sites by transit role and keep stub policies consistent with their advertised routes. Split horizon ordinarily prevents re-advertising a route out the interface on which it was learned. C:Keep metric K-value configuration uniform across each EIGRP domain. Split horizon ordinarily prevents re-advertising a route out the interface on which it was learned.
Question 125 An engineer adds a second feasible successor path but a downstream router still receives only a summary because outbound filtering hides the specifics. Which corrective action most directly resolves the documented failure without suppressing unrelated safeguards? Check EIGRP distribute lists and summary advertisements toward that downstream neighbor. Do not treat this backup as a feasible successor; verify an alternative path or allow query-based recalculation. Review split horizon on the hub multipoint interface and apply the design-appropriate exception only where needed. Bind the intended EIGRP IPv6 address family to the correct VRF context and verify interface membership. ExplanationCorrect Answer A:Check EIGRP distribute lists and summary advertisements toward that downstream neighbor. A feasible path in the local topology does not guarantee its more-specific prefix is advertised past outbound policy. Inspect outbound advertisements and downstream topology entries for the affected specific routes. Other Answers B:Do not treat this backup as a feasible successor; verify an alternative path or allow query-based recalculation. A feasible path in the local topology does not guarantee its more-specific prefix is advertised past outbound policy. C:Review split horizon on the hub multipoint interface and apply the design-appropriate exception only where needed. A feasible path in the local topology does not guarantee its more-specific prefix is advertised past outbound policy. D:Bind the intended EIGRP IPv6 address family to the correct VRF context and verify interface membership. A feasible path in the local topology does not guarantee its more-specific prefix is advertised past outbound policy.
Question 126 An engineer adds a second feasible successor path but a downstream router still receives only a summary because outbound filtering hides the specifics. Which technical mechanism best explains the behavior observed in this scenario? EIGRP VRF address families maintain separated route exchanges and forwarding contexts from the global table. A feasible path in the local topology does not guarantee its more-specific prefix is advertised past outbound policy. EIGRP variance and traffic-share mechanisms can influence unequal-cost path installation and forwarding. Named EIGRP uses address-family and AF-interface configuration scopes; global IPv4 activation does not imply IPv6 neighborship. ExplanationCorrect Answer B:A feasible path in the local topology does not guarantee its more-specific prefix is advertised past outbound policy. This explains why the initial condition produces the observed failure. The direct repair is: Check EIGRP distribute lists and summary advertisements toward that downstream neighbor. Validate through: Inspect outbound advertisements and downstream topology entries for the affected specific routes. Other Answers A:EIGRP VRF address families maintain separated route exchanges and forwarding contexts from the global table. A feasible path in the local topology does not guarantee its more-specific prefix is advertised past outbound policy. C:EIGRP variance and traffic-share mechanisms can influence unequal-cost path installation and forwarding. A feasible path in the local topology does not guarantee its more-specific prefix is advertised past outbound policy. D:Named EIGRP uses address-family and AF-interface configuration scopes; global IPv4 activation does not imply IPv6 neighborship. A feasible path in the local topology does not guarantee its more-specific prefix is advertised past outbound policy.
Question 127 An engineer adds a second feasible successor path but a downstream router still receives only a summary because outbound filtering hides the specifics. After applying the correction, which verification evidence most directly demonstrates that this issue is resolved? Show spoke-to-spoke route propagation on the hub after the targeted split-horizon design change. Correlate the active topology entry, outstanding queries, neighbor resets and underlying transport loss. Inspect outbound advertisements and downstream topology entries for the affected specific routes. Restore a stable uplink neighbor and verify the summarized branch route is received. ExplanationCorrect Answer C:Inspect outbound advertisements and downstream topology entries for the affected specific routes. This checks the affected traffic or control-plane behavior, not merely a generic up/down indicator. The underlying mechanism is: A feasible path in the local topology does not guarantee its more-specific prefix is advertised past outbound policy. Other Answers A:Show spoke-to-spoke route propagation on the hub after the targeted split-horizon design change. A feasible path in the local topology does not guarantee its more-specific prefix is advertised past outbound policy. B:Correlate the active topology entry, outstanding queries, neighbor resets and underlying transport loss. A feasible path in the local topology does not guarantee its more-specific prefix is advertised past outbound policy. D:Restore a stable uplink neighbor and verify the summarized branch route is received. A feasible path in the local topology does not guarantee its more-specific prefix is advertised past outbound policy.
Question 128 An engineer adds a second feasible successor path but a downstream router still receives only a summary because outbound filtering hides the specifics. Which lasting design or operational safeguard best prevents this particular issue from recurring? Classify EIGRP sites by transit role and keep stub policies consistent with their advertised routes. Bound query scope with hierarchy or stubs and monitor routing-control plane congestion. Match all EIGRP AFs and VRF bindings to documented tenant routing boundaries. Review summary and distribution policies jointly when adding backup path capacity. ExplanationCorrect Answer D:Review summary and distribution policies jointly when adding backup path capacity. This addresses the recurring cause: A feasible path in the local topology does not guarantee its more-specific prefix is advertised past outbound policy. A targeted acceptance check is: Inspect outbound advertisements and downstream topology entries for the affected specific routes. Other Answers A:Classify EIGRP sites by transit role and keep stub policies consistent with their advertised routes. A feasible path in the local topology does not guarantee its more-specific prefix is advertised past outbound policy. B:Bound query scope with hierarchy or stubs and monitor routing-control plane congestion. A feasible path in the local topology does not guarantee its more-specific prefix is advertised past outbound policy. C:Match all EIGRP AFs and VRF bindings to documented tenant routing boundaries. A feasible path in the local topology does not guarantee its more-specific prefix is advertised past outbound policy.
Question 129 An EIGRP interface shows neighbors, but remote IPv6 routes are missing because the network is in a separate VRF while IPv6 AF is attached globally. Which corrective action most directly resolves the documented failure without suppressing unrelated safeguards? Bind the intended EIGRP IPv6 address family to the correct VRF context and verify interface membership. Correct the interface bandwidth reference and validate EIGRP composite metric components, not the physical speed alone. Align compatible EIGRP metric K-values on both peers after confirming design requirements. Remove unintended passive treatment for the transit interface while keeping LAN interfaces passive as planned. ExplanationCorrect Answer A:Bind the intended EIGRP IPv6 address family to the correct VRF context and verify interface membership. EIGRP VRF address families maintain separated route exchanges and forwarding contexts from the global table. Display expected IPv6 routes in the tenant VRF and none leaked into the global table. Other Answers B:Correct the interface bandwidth reference and validate EIGRP composite metric components, not the physical speed alone. EIGRP VRF address families maintain separated route exchanges and forwarding contexts from the global table. C:Align compatible EIGRP metric K-values on both peers after confirming design requirements. EIGRP VRF address families maintain separated route exchanges and forwarding contexts from the global table. D:Remove unintended passive treatment for the transit interface while keeping LAN interfaces passive as planned. EIGRP VRF address families maintain separated route exchanges and forwarding contexts from the global table.
Question 130 An EIGRP interface shows neighbors, but remote IPv6 routes are missing because the network is in a separate VRF while IPv6 AF is attached globally. Which technical mechanism best explains the behavior observed in this scenario? DUAL waits for replies before completing an active diffusing computation; missing replies can trigger SIA handling. EIGRP VRF address families maintain separated route exchanges and forwarding contexts from the global table. Authentication failure causes otherwise correctly addressed EIGRP hello packets to be rejected rather than forming a neighbor. Named EIGRP uses address-family and AF-interface configuration scopes; global IPv4 activation does not imply IPv6 neighborship. ExplanationCorrect Answer B:EIGRP VRF address families maintain separated route exchanges and forwarding contexts from the global table. This explains why the initial condition produces the observed failure. The direct repair is: Bind the intended EIGRP IPv6 address family to the correct VRF context and verify interface membership. Validate through: Display expected IPv6 routes in the tenant VRF and none leaked into the global table. Other Answers A:DUAL waits for replies before completing an active diffusing computation; missing replies can trigger SIA handling. EIGRP VRF address families maintain separated route exchanges and forwarding contexts from the global table. C:Authentication failure causes otherwise correctly addressed EIGRP hello packets to be rejected rather than forming a neighbor. EIGRP VRF address families maintain separated route exchanges and forwarding contexts from the global table. D:Named EIGRP uses address-family and AF-interface configuration scopes; global IPv4 activation does not imply IPv6 neighborship. EIGRP VRF address families maintain separated route exchanges and forwarding contexts from the global table.
