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.
Question 11 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. 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. 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. Trace one prefix through both borders and confirm only the intended original source is exported. ExplanationCorrect Answer C:Check `show ip route` and recursive next-hop resolution while failing and restoring the primary link. This checks the affected traffic or control-plane behavior, not merely a generic up/down indicator. The underlying mechanism is: A configured static route can enter the RIB only when its next hop is resolvable, subject to platform and configuration conditions. Other Answers A:Inspect both candidate routes, their ADs, next-hop reachability and the winning RIB entry before and after the approved policy change. A configured static route can enter the RIB only when its next hop is resolvable, subject to platform and configuration conditions. B:Show the route using OSPF while primary reachability works and the backup static route taking over only under the tested failure. A configured static route can enter the RIB only when its next hop is resolvable, subject to platform and configuration conditions. D:Trace one prefix through both borders and confirm only the intended original source is exported. A configured static route can enter the RIB only when its next hop is resolvable, subject to platform and configuration conditions.
Question 12 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 lasting design or operational safeguard best prevents this particular issue from recurring? Document protocol distance assumptions and test primary-to-backup route failover after changes. Include identical-prefix multi-protocol precedence in a routing acceptance test and maintain an AD matrix. Document feasibility and variance checks in the multipath deployment standard. Monitor next-hop reachability and pair failover design with tracking where the connected path alone cannot detect remote failure. ExplanationCorrect Answer D:Monitor next-hop reachability and pair failover design with tracking where the connected path alone cannot detect remote failure. This addresses the recurring cause: A configured static route can enter the RIB only when its next hop is resolvable, subject to platform and configuration conditions. A targeted acceptance check is: Check `show ip route` and recursive next-hop resolution while failing and restoring the primary link. Other Answers A:Document protocol distance assumptions and test primary-to-backup route failover after changes. A configured static route can enter the RIB only when its next hop is resolvable, subject to platform and configuration conditions. B:Include identical-prefix multi-protocol precedence in a routing acceptance test and maintain an AD matrix. A configured static route can enter the RIB only when its next hop is resolvable, subject to platform and configuration conditions. C:Document feasibility and variance checks in the multipath deployment standard. A configured static route can enter the RIB only when its next hop is resolvable, subject to platform and configuration conditions.
Question 13 A distribution router imports an OSPF route into EIGRP, and a downstream router redistributes that same route back into OSPF, repeatedly changing the chosen path. Which corrective action most directly resolves the documented failure without suppressing unrelated safeguards? Tag routes at the first redistribution point and explicitly filter that tag on the return boundary. Use PBR next-hop availability checking or reachability tracking supported by the platform instead of trusting link-up alone. Apply a narrowly scoped outbound prefix policy for the peer to include only explicitly approved networks. Add an appropriate `ge` and `le` length condition if these more-specific prefixes are truly authorized. ExplanationCorrect Answer A:Tag routes at the first redistribution point and explicitly filter that tag on the return boundary. Uncontrolled bidirectional redistribution can reintroduce an already exported route, producing feedback and unstable route selection. Inspect route tags in the routing table and prove that a returned tagged prefix is denied while legitimate new prefixes still propagate. Other Answers B:Use PBR next-hop availability checking or reachability tracking supported by the platform instead of trusting link-up alone. Uncontrolled bidirectional redistribution can reintroduce an already exported route, producing feedback and unstable route selection. C:Apply a narrowly scoped outbound prefix policy for the peer to include only explicitly approved networks. Uncontrolled bidirectional redistribution can reintroduce an already exported route, producing feedback and unstable route selection. D:Add an appropriate `ge` and `le` length condition if these more-specific prefixes are truly authorized. Uncontrolled bidirectional redistribution can reintroduce an already exported route, producing feedback and unstable route selection.
Question 14 A distribution router imports an OSPF route into EIGRP, and a downstream router redistributes that same route back into OSPF, repeatedly changing the chosen path. Which technical mechanism best explains the behavior observed in this scenario? EIGRP interface summarization affects advertisements leaving the configured interface, not all neighbors globally. Uncontrolled bidirectional redistribution can reintroduce an already exported route, producing feedback and unstable route selection. Policy route-map actions operate on the traffic matched by the ACL or match clause, including unintended overlaps. A set action is applied only when the route is processed by the matching permit sequence at the intended redistribution point. ExplanationCorrect Answer B:Uncontrolled bidirectional redistribution can reintroduce an already exported route, producing feedback and unstable route selection. This explains why the initial condition produces the observed failure. The direct repair is: Tag routes at the first redistribution point and explicitly filter that tag on the return boundary. Validate through: Inspect route tags in the routing table and prove that a returned tagged prefix is denied while legitimate new prefixes still propagate. Other Answers A:EIGRP interface summarization affects advertisements leaving the configured interface, not all neighbors globally. Uncontrolled bidirectional redistribution can reintroduce an already exported route, producing feedback and unstable route selection. C:Policy route-map actions operate on the traffic matched by the ACL or match clause, including unintended overlaps. Uncontrolled bidirectional redistribution can reintroduce an already exported route, producing feedback and unstable route selection. D:A set action is applied only when the route is processed by the matching permit sequence at the intended redistribution point. Uncontrolled bidirectional redistribution can reintroduce an already exported route, producing feedback and unstable route selection.
Question 15 A distribution router imports an OSPF route into EIGRP, and a downstream router redistributes that same route back into OSPF, repeatedly changing the chosen path. After applying the correction, which verification evidence most directly demonstrates that this issue is resolved? Fail remote reachability and verify SLA state, track transitions and payment traffic shifting to the healthy next hop. Test one authorized medical flow and one guest flow, observing their distinct next hops and policy counters. Inspect route tags in the routing table and prove that a returned tagged prefix is denied while legitimate new prefixes still propagate. Show the default route and recursive next hop under the tenant VRF, then test client traffic. ExplanationCorrect Answer C:Inspect route tags in the routing table and prove that a returned tagged prefix is denied while legitimate new prefixes still propagate. This checks the affected traffic or control-plane behavior, not merely a generic up/down indicator. The underlying mechanism is: Uncontrolled bidirectional redistribution can reintroduce an already exported route, producing feedback and unstable route selection. Other Answers A:Fail remote reachability and verify SLA state, track transitions and payment traffic shifting to the healthy next hop. Uncontrolled bidirectional redistribution can reintroduce an already exported route, producing feedback and unstable route selection. B:Test one authorized medical flow and one guest flow, observing their distinct next hops and policy counters. Uncontrolled bidirectional redistribution can reintroduce an already exported route, producing feedback and unstable route selection. D:Show the default route and recursive next hop under the tenant VRF, then test client traffic. Uncontrolled bidirectional redistribution can reintroduce an already exported route, producing feedback and unstable route selection.
Question 16 A distribution router imports an OSPF route into EIGRP, and a downstream router redistributes that same route back into OSPF, repeatedly changing the chosen path. Which lasting design or operational safeguard best prevents this particular issue from recurring? Write prefix-policy test cases for exact and more-specific prefixes before deploying modifications. Validate interface-to-VRF bindings against the approved tenant inventory after every cutover. Map summary direction and receiver neighbors explicitly during routing design review. Maintain route ownership and tag/filter policy at each redistribution boundary with bidirectional loop tests. ExplanationCorrect Answer D:Maintain route ownership and tag/filter policy at each redistribution boundary with bidirectional loop tests. This addresses the recurring cause: Uncontrolled bidirectional redistribution can reintroduce an already exported route, producing feedback and unstable route selection. A targeted acceptance check is: Inspect route tags in the routing table and prove that a returned tagged prefix is denied while legitimate new prefixes still propagate. Other Answers A:Write prefix-policy test cases for exact and more-specific prefixes before deploying modifications. Uncontrolled bidirectional redistribution can reintroduce an already exported route, producing feedback and unstable route selection. B:Validate interface-to-VRF bindings against the approved tenant inventory after every cutover. Uncontrolled bidirectional redistribution can reintroduce an already exported route, producing feedback and unstable route selection. C:Map summary direction and receiver neighbors explicitly during routing design review. Uncontrolled bidirectional redistribution can reintroduce an already exported route, producing feedback and unstable route selection.
Question 17 A route-map used with redistribution has a permit sequence matching a prefix list, but approved routes absent from that list disappear from the receiving protocol. Which corrective action most directly resolves the documented failure without suppressing unrelated safeguards? Add an explicit later permit sequence for the intended unmatched routes after reviewing which prefixes may cross. Inspect OSPF path type and cost instead of changing interprotocol administrative distance. Enable BFD with compatible timers and bind routing sessions to it where both peers support that integration. Tag routes at the first redistribution point and explicitly filter that tag on the return boundary. ExplanationCorrect Answer A:Add an explicit later permit sequence for the intended unmatched routes after reviewing which prefixes may cross. Route-maps apply sequence matching and implicitly deny entries that do not match a permitting clause. Verify the route-map sequence counters and redistributed prefix set with one matched and one previously unmatched approved route. Other Answers B:Inspect OSPF path type and cost instead of changing interprotocol administrative distance. Route-maps apply sequence matching and implicitly deny entries that do not match a permitting clause. C:Enable BFD with compatible timers and bind routing sessions to it where both peers support that integration. Route-maps apply sequence matching and implicitly deny entries that do not match a permitting clause. D:Tag routes at the first redistribution point and explicitly filter that tag on the return boundary. Route-maps apply sequence matching and implicitly deny entries that do not match a permitting clause.
Question 18 A route-map used with redistribution has a permit sequence matching a prefix list, but approved routes absent from that list disappear from the receiving protocol. Which technical mechanism best explains the behavior observed in this scenario? EIGRP interface summarization affects advertisements leaving the configured interface, not all neighbors globally. Route-maps apply sequence matching and implicitly deny entries that do not match a permitting clause. A prefix-list entry without length modifiers matches the exact prefix length, not every subnet underneath it. EIGRP must have an initial composite metric for redistributed routes; a missing metric prevents usable injection. ExplanationCorrect Answer B:Route-maps apply sequence matching and implicitly deny entries that do not match a permitting clause. This explains why the initial condition produces the observed failure. The direct repair is: Add an explicit later permit sequence for the intended unmatched routes after reviewing which prefixes may cross. Validate through: Verify the route-map sequence counters and redistributed prefix set with one matched and one previously unmatched approved route. Other Answers A:EIGRP interface summarization affects advertisements leaving the configured interface, not all neighbors globally. Route-maps apply sequence matching and implicitly deny entries that do not match a permitting clause. C:A prefix-list entry without length modifiers matches the exact prefix length, not every subnet underneath it. Route-maps apply sequence matching and implicitly deny entries that do not match a permitting clause. D:EIGRP must have an initial composite metric for redistributed routes; a missing metric prevents usable injection. Route-maps apply sequence matching and implicitly deny entries that do not match a permitting clause.
Question 19 A route-map used with redistribution has a permit sequence matching a prefix list, but approved routes absent from that list disappear from the receiving protocol. After applying the correction, which verification evidence most directly demonstrates that this issue is resolved? Test one authorized medical flow and one guest flow, observing their distinct next hops and policy counters. Query `show ip route vrf` for both tenants and prove that overlap remains isolated under forwarding tests. Verify the route-map sequence counters and redistributed prefix set with one matched and one previously unmatched approved route. Test reachability to an active /24 and a deliberately unused /24 while inspecting the advertised summary and discard route. ExplanationCorrect Answer C:Verify the route-map sequence counters and redistributed prefix set with one matched and one previously unmatched approved route. This checks the affected traffic or control-plane behavior, not merely a generic up/down indicator. The underlying mechanism is: Route-maps apply sequence matching and implicitly deny entries that do not match a permitting clause. Other Answers A:Test one authorized medical flow and one guest flow, observing their distinct next hops and policy counters. Route-maps apply sequence matching and implicitly deny entries that do not match a permitting clause. B:Query `show ip route vrf` for both tenants and prove that overlap remains isolated under forwarding tests. Route-maps apply sequence matching and implicitly deny entries that do not match a permitting clause. D:Test reachability to an active /24 and a deliberately unused /24 while inspecting the advertised summary and discard route. Route-maps apply sequence matching and implicitly deny entries that do not match a permitting clause.
Question 20 A route-map used with redistribution has a permit sequence matching a prefix list, but approved routes absent from that list disappear from the receiving protocol. Which lasting design or operational safeguard best prevents this particular issue from recurring? Write prefix-policy test cases for exact and more-specific prefixes before deploying modifications. Use approved BFD profiles and avoid untested aggressive timers on constrained links. Maintain an explicit per-prefix redistribution ownership matrix across protocol boundaries. Regression-test the default route-map outcome whenever the match policy is edited. ExplanationCorrect Answer D:Regression-test the default route-map outcome whenever the match policy is edited. This addresses the recurring cause: Route-maps apply sequence matching and implicitly deny entries that do not match a permitting clause. A targeted acceptance check is: Verify the route-map sequence counters and redistributed prefix set with one matched and one previously unmatched approved route. Other Answers A:Write prefix-policy test cases for exact and more-specific prefixes before deploying modifications. Route-maps apply sequence matching and implicitly deny entries that do not match a permitting clause. B:Use approved BFD profiles and avoid untested aggressive timers on constrained links. Route-maps apply sequence matching and implicitly deny entries that do not match a permitting clause. C:Maintain an explicit per-prefix redistribution ownership matrix across protocol boundaries. Route-maps apply sequence matching and implicitly deny entries that do not match a permitting clause.
