Question 180 OSPFv3 IPv6 routes stop updating across a link that is administratively up because the IPv6 interface is missing the proper OSPFv3 instance attachment. Which lasting design or operational safeguard best prevents this particular issue from recurring? Keep ABR area-type policy consistent under redundancy changes. Teach path-type hierarchy alongside cost tuning in OSPF policy review. Design durable Area 0 continuity rather than relying permanently on virtual-link workarounds. Perform separate OSPFv3 interface and AF coverage checks in dual-stack upgrades. ExplanationCorrect Answer D:Perform separate OSPFv3 interface and AF coverage checks in dual-stack upgrades. This addresses the recurring cause: OSPFv3 adjacencies and route exchange follow their configured interface instances and address families rather than IPv4 process network statements. A targeted acceptance check is: Verify OSPFv3 neighbors and the expected IPv6 prefix in the routing table. Other Answers A:Keep ABR area-type policy consistent under redundancy changes. OSPFv3 adjacencies and route exchange follow their configured interface instances and address families rather than IPv4 process network statements. B:Teach path-type hierarchy alongside cost tuning in OSPF policy review. OSPFv3 adjacencies and route exchange follow their configured interface instances and address families rather than IPv4 process network statements. C:Design durable Area 0 continuity rather than relying permanently on virtual-link workarounds. OSPFv3 adjacencies and route exchange follow their configured interface instances and address families rather than IPv4 process network statements.
Question 181 One router in a totally stubby OSPF area unexpectedly sees interarea summaries after a new ABR configuration was introduced. Which corrective action most directly resolves the documented failure without suppressing unrelated safeguards? Restore the correct no-summary behavior on all relevant ABRs while preserving an appropriate default route. Correct the interface or path MTU mismatch rather than using mtu-ignore as the default workaround. Repair Area 0 connectivity or configure a supported temporary virtual link through an eligible transit area. Confirm the DR/BDR election and leave valid DROTHER-to-DROTHER 2-WAY relationships intact. ExplanationCorrect Answer A:Restore the correct no-summary behavior on all relevant ABRs while preserving an appropriate default route. A totally stubby area suppresses ordinary interarea summary LSAs beyond the default-route behavior. Check the area's LSDB and confirm expected default and no unwanted detailed interarea routes. Other Answers B:Correct the interface or path MTU mismatch rather than using mtu-ignore as the default workaround. A totally stubby area suppresses ordinary interarea summary LSAs beyond the default-route behavior. C:Repair Area 0 connectivity or configure a supported temporary virtual link through an eligible transit area. A totally stubby area suppresses ordinary interarea summary LSAs beyond the default-route behavior. D:Confirm the DR/BDR election and leave valid DROTHER-to-DROTHER 2-WAY relationships intact. A totally stubby area suppresses ordinary interarea summary LSAs beyond the default-route behavior.
Question 182 One router in a totally stubby OSPF area unexpectedly sees interarea summaries after a new ABR configuration was introduced. Which technical mechanism best explains the behavior observed in this scenario? On broadcast networks, DROTHER routers typically form full adjacency with DR/BDR, not each other. A totally stubby area suppresses ordinary interarea summary LSAs beyond the default-route behavior. A stub area's design suppresses Type-5 external advertisements while its ABR can provide a default route. OSPF SPF cost, including manually set interface cost, determines equal-cost installation within the same route type. ExplanationCorrect Answer B:A totally stubby area suppresses ordinary interarea summary LSAs beyond the default-route behavior. This explains why the initial condition produces the observed failure. The direct repair is: Restore the correct no-summary behavior on all relevant ABRs while preserving an appropriate default route. Validate through: Check the area's LSDB and confirm expected default and no unwanted detailed interarea routes. Other Answers A:On broadcast networks, DROTHER routers typically form full adjacency with DR/BDR, not each other. A totally stubby area suppresses ordinary interarea summary LSAs beyond the default-route behavior. C:A stub area's design suppresses Type-5 external advertisements while its ABR can provide a default route. A totally stubby area suppresses ordinary interarea summary LSAs beyond the default-route behavior. D:OSPF SPF cost, including manually set interface cost, determines equal-cost installation within the same route type. A totally stubby area suppresses ordinary interarea summary LSAs beyond the default-route behavior.
Question 183 One router in a totally stubby OSPF area unexpectedly sees interarea summaries after a new ABR configuration was introduced. After applying the correction, which verification evidence most directly demonstrates that this issue is resolved? Compare route types and selected path with correct test prefixes after remediation. Inspect both interface timer values and confirm a stable FULL neighbor state after correction. Check the area's LSDB and confirm expected default and no unwanted detailed interarea routes. Verify backbone adjacency and restored interarea prefixes on the separated ABR. ExplanationCorrect Answer C:Check the area's LSDB and confirm expected default and no unwanted detailed interarea routes. This checks the affected traffic or control-plane behavior, not merely a generic up/down indicator. The underlying mechanism is: A totally stubby area suppresses ordinary interarea summary LSAs beyond the default-route behavior. Other Answers A:Compare route types and selected path with correct test prefixes after remediation. A totally stubby area suppresses ordinary interarea summary LSAs beyond the default-route behavior. B:Inspect both interface timer values and confirm a stable FULL neighbor state after correction. A totally stubby area suppresses ordinary interarea summary LSAs beyond the default-route behavior. D:Verify backbone adjacency and restored interarea prefixes on the separated ABR. A totally stubby area suppresses ordinary interarea summary LSAs beyond the default-route behavior.
Question 184 One router in a totally stubby OSPF area unexpectedly sees interarea summaries after a new ABR configuration was introduced. Which lasting design or operational safeguard best prevents this particular issue from recurring? Include bidirectional hello and multicast delivery tests in OSPF interface acceptance. Add OSPF MTU consistency checks to routed-circuit change validation. Teach path-type hierarchy alongside cost tuning in OSPF policy review. Keep ABR area-type policy consistent under redundancy changes. ExplanationCorrect Answer D:Keep ABR area-type policy consistent under redundancy changes. This addresses the recurring cause: A totally stubby area suppresses ordinary interarea summary LSAs beyond the default-route behavior. A targeted acceptance check is: Check the area's LSDB and confirm expected default and no unwanted detailed interarea routes. Other Answers A:Include bidirectional hello and multicast delivery tests in OSPF interface acceptance. A totally stubby area suppresses ordinary interarea summary LSAs beyond the default-route behavior. B:Add OSPF MTU consistency checks to routed-circuit change validation. A totally stubby area suppresses ordinary interarea summary LSAs beyond the default-route behavior. C:Teach path-type hierarchy alongside cost tuning in OSPF policy review. A totally stubby area suppresses ordinary interarea summary LSAs beyond the default-route behavior.
Question 185 OSPF ECMP drops to one path because the second equal-bandwidth link has an unintended extra interface cost. Which corrective action most directly resolves the documented failure without suppressing unrelated safeguards? Correct the explicit interface cost so eligible paths have the intended comparable OSPF cost. Verify default-route reachability instead of expecting Type-5 external LSAs inside the stub area. Identify the OSPF external/default origination and area behavior before altering an unrelated BGP attribute. Find and correct one-way hello receipt, multicast filtering or layer-two delivery on the affected segment. ExplanationCorrect Answer A:Correct the explicit interface cost so eligible paths have the intended comparable OSPF cost. OSPF SPF cost, including manually set interface cost, determines equal-cost installation within the same route type. Inspect OSPF route costs and multiple installed next hops after correction. Other Answers B:Verify default-route reachability instead of expecting Type-5 external LSAs inside the stub area. OSPF SPF cost, including manually set interface cost, determines equal-cost installation within the same route type. C:Identify the OSPF external/default origination and area behavior before altering an unrelated BGP attribute. OSPF SPF cost, including manually set interface cost, determines equal-cost installation within the same route type. D:Find and correct one-way hello receipt, multicast filtering or layer-two delivery on the affected segment. OSPF SPF cost, including manually set interface cost, determines equal-cost installation within the same route type.
Question 186 OSPF ECMP drops to one path because the second equal-bandwidth link has an unintended extra interface cost. Which technical mechanism best explains the behavior observed in this scenario? On broadcast networks, DROTHER routers typically form full adjacency with DR/BDR, not each other. OSPF SPF cost, including manually set interface cost, determines equal-cost installation within the same route type. A totally stubby area suppresses ordinary interarea summary LSAs beyond the default-route behavior. OSPF neighbor creation checks hello/dead timer compatibility; mismatched intervals cause hello rejection. ExplanationCorrect Answer B:OSPF SPF cost, including manually set interface cost, determines equal-cost installation within the same route type. This explains why the initial condition produces the observed failure. The direct repair is: Correct the explicit interface cost so eligible paths have the intended comparable OSPF cost. Validate through: Inspect OSPF route costs and multiple installed next hops after correction. Other Answers A:On broadcast networks, DROTHER routers typically form full adjacency with DR/BDR, not each other. OSPF SPF cost, including manually set interface cost, determines equal-cost installation within the same route type. C:A totally stubby area suppresses ordinary interarea summary LSAs beyond the default-route behavior. OSPF SPF cost, including manually set interface cost, determines equal-cost installation within the same route type. D:OSPF neighbor creation checks hello/dead timer compatibility; mismatched intervals cause hello rejection. OSPF SPF cost, including manually set interface cost, determines equal-cost installation within the same route type.
Question 187 OSPF ECMP drops to one path because the second equal-bandwidth link has an unintended extra interface cost. After applying the correction, which verification evidence most directly demonstrates that this issue is resolved? Inspect both interface timer values and confirm a stable FULL neighbor state after correction. Verify OSPFv3 neighbors and the expected IPv6 prefix in the routing table. Inspect OSPF route costs and multiple installed next hops after correction. Compare interface MTUs and observe EXSTART progressing through EXCHANGE to FULL after alignment. ExplanationCorrect Answer C:Inspect OSPF route costs and multiple installed next hops after correction. This checks the affected traffic or control-plane behavior, not merely a generic up/down indicator. The underlying mechanism is: OSPF SPF cost, including manually set interface cost, determines equal-cost installation within the same route type. Other Answers A:Inspect both interface timer values and confirm a stable FULL neighbor state after correction. OSPF SPF cost, including manually set interface cost, determines equal-cost installation within the same route type. B:Verify OSPFv3 neighbors and the expected IPv6 prefix in the routing table. OSPF SPF cost, including manually set interface cost, determines equal-cost installation within the same route type. D:Compare interface MTUs and observe EXSTART progressing through EXCHANGE to FULL after alignment. OSPF SPF cost, including manually set interface cost, determines equal-cost installation within the same route type.
Question 188 OSPF ECMP drops to one path because the second equal-bandwidth link has an unintended extra interface cost. Which lasting design or operational safeguard best prevents this particular issue from recurring? Assign unique stable router IDs in the deployment inventory. Include bidirectional hello and multicast delivery tests in OSPF interface acceptance. Validate consistent stub/NSSA/normal area settings for all routers in an area. Audit explicit OSPF costs during link-speed and redundant-link changes. ExplanationCorrect Answer D:Audit explicit OSPF costs during link-speed and redundant-link changes. This addresses the recurring cause: OSPF SPF cost, including manually set interface cost, determines equal-cost installation within the same route type. A targeted acceptance check is: Inspect OSPF route costs and multiple installed next hops after correction. Other Answers A:Assign unique stable router IDs in the deployment inventory. OSPF SPF cost, including manually set interface cost, determines equal-cost installation within the same route type. B:Include bidirectional hello and multicast delivery tests in OSPF interface acceptance. OSPF SPF cost, including manually set interface cost, determines equal-cost installation within the same route type. C:Validate consistent stub/NSSA/normal area settings for all routers in an area. OSPF SPF cost, including manually set interface cost, determines equal-cost installation within the same route type.
Question 189 A BGP ASBR redistributes a default route into OSPF, but a remote area sees the default through an ABR instead and the operator tries to raise BGP weight. Which corrective action most directly resolves the documented failure without suppressing unrelated safeguards? Identify the OSPF external/default origination and area behavior before altering an unrelated BGP attribute. Make both sides' area-type settings consistent with the approved stub-area design. Use a network type and neighbor design appropriate for the nonbroadcast multipoint topology. Correct the explicit interface cost so eligible paths have the intended comparable OSPF cost. ExplanationCorrect Answer A:Identify the OSPF external/default origination and area behavior before altering an unrelated BGP attribute. BGP weight influences local BGP path choice, not which OSPF default LSA an area accepts from an ABR. Trace the default route's OSPF source/type and validate the intended origination point. Other Answers B:Make both sides' area-type settings consistent with the approved stub-area design. BGP weight influences local BGP path choice, not which OSPF default LSA an area accepts from an ABR. C:Use a network type and neighbor design appropriate for the nonbroadcast multipoint topology. BGP weight influences local BGP path choice, not which OSPF default LSA an area accepts from an ABR. D:Correct the explicit interface cost so eligible paths have the intended comparable OSPF cost. BGP weight influences local BGP path choice, not which OSPF default LSA an area accepts from an ABR.
Question 190 A BGP ASBR redistributes a default route into OSPF, but a remote area sees the default through an ABR instead and the operator tries to raise BGP weight. Which technical mechanism best explains the behavior observed in this scenario? OSPF SPF cost, including manually set interface cost, determines equal-cost installation within the same route type. BGP weight influences local BGP path choice, not which OSPF default LSA an area accepts from an ABR. OSPFv3 adjacencies and route exchange follow their configured interface instances and address families rather than IPv4 process network statements. OSPF interarea routing relies on a connected backbone design; virtual links can restore logical backbone continuity in supported cases. ExplanationCorrect Answer B:BGP weight influences local BGP path choice, not which OSPF default LSA an area accepts from an ABR. This explains why the initial condition produces the observed failure. The direct repair is: Identify the OSPF external/default origination and area behavior before altering an unrelated BGP attribute. Validate through: Trace the default route's OSPF source/type and validate the intended origination point. Other Answers A:OSPF SPF cost, including manually set interface cost, determines equal-cost installation within the same route type. BGP weight influences local BGP path choice, not which OSPF default LSA an area accepts from an ABR. C:OSPFv3 adjacencies and route exchange follow their configured interface instances and address families rather than IPv4 process network statements. BGP weight influences local BGP path choice, not which OSPF default LSA an area accepts from an ABR. D:OSPF interarea routing relies on a connected backbone design; virtual links can restore logical backbone continuity in supported cases. BGP weight influences local BGP path choice, not which OSPF default LSA an area accepts from an ABR.
