Question 60 A dual-homed router forms ordinary routing neighbors but takes many seconds to withdraw an unreachable peer when physical interfaces stay up. Which lasting design or operational safeguard best prevents this particular issue from recurring? Use nonoverlapping match objects and negative test cases for every source-sensitive policy. Separate intraprotocol metric troubleshooting from interprotocol AD policy decisions. Regression-test the default route-map outcome whenever the match policy is edited. Use approved BFD profiles and avoid untested aggressive timers on constrained links. ExplanationCorrect Answer D:Use approved BFD profiles and avoid untested aggressive timers on constrained links. This addresses the recurring cause: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection detects forwarding-path failures independently of the protocol's ordinary control-plane hello interval. A targeted acceptance check is: Verify BFD session Up state, deliberate forwarding failure detection and corresponding routing reconvergence. Other Answers A:Use nonoverlapping match objects and negative test cases for every source-sensitive policy. Bidirectional Forwarding Detection detects forwarding-path failures independently of the protocol's ordinary control-plane hello interval. B:Separate intraprotocol metric troubleshooting from interprotocol AD policy decisions. Bidirectional Forwarding Detection detects forwarding-path failures independently of the protocol's ordinary control-plane hello interval. C:Regression-test the default route-map outcome whenever the match policy is edited. Bidirectional Forwarding Detection detects forwarding-path failures independently of the protocol's ordinary control-plane hello interval.
Question 61 Two OSPF routes for the same prefix have equal protocol preference, but an operator adjusts administrative distance expecting to choose the better OSPF path. Which corrective action most directly resolves the documented failure without suppressing unrelated safeguards? Inspect OSPF path type and cost instead of changing interprotocol administrative distance. Inspect the ingress interface's PBR route-map and correct the matched next-hop action for the affected source. Configure the next-hop route in the tenant VRF with reachability resolved in that VRF. Add an appropriate `ge` and `le` length condition if these more-specific prefixes are truly authorized. ExplanationCorrect Answer A:Inspect OSPF path type and cost instead of changing interprotocol administrative distance. Once the route source is OSPF, OSPF's own path-selection rules determine its best candidate before RIB comparison. Compare OSPF route type, area and total cost before showing the selected next hop. Other Answers B:Inspect the ingress interface's PBR route-map and correct the matched next-hop action for the affected source. Once the route source is OSPF, OSPF's own path-selection rules determine its best candidate before RIB comparison. C:Configure the next-hop route in the tenant VRF with reachability resolved in that VRF. Once the route source is OSPF, OSPF's own path-selection rules determine its best candidate before RIB comparison. D:Add an appropriate `ge` and `le` length condition if these more-specific prefixes are truly authorized. Once the route source is OSPF, OSPF's own path-selection rules determine its best candidate before RIB comparison.
Question 62 Two OSPF routes for the same prefix have equal protocol preference, but an operator adjusts administrative distance expecting to choose the better OSPF path. Which technical mechanism best explains the behavior observed in this scenario? Uncontrolled bidirectional redistribution can reintroduce an already exported route, producing feedback and unstable route selection. Once the route source is OSPF, OSPF's own path-selection rules determine its best candidate before RIB comparison. Policy route-map actions operate on the traffic matched by the ACL or match clause, including unintended overlaps. Route-maps apply sequence matching and implicitly deny entries that do not match a permitting clause. ExplanationCorrect Answer B:Once the route source is OSPF, OSPF's own path-selection rules determine its best candidate before RIB comparison. This explains why the initial condition produces the observed failure. The direct repair is: Inspect OSPF path type and cost instead of changing interprotocol administrative distance. Validate through: Compare OSPF route type, area and total cost before showing the selected next hop. Other Answers A:Uncontrolled bidirectional redistribution can reintroduce an already exported route, producing feedback and unstable route selection. Once the route source is OSPF, OSPF's own path-selection rules determine its best candidate before RIB comparison. C:Policy route-map actions operate on the traffic matched by the ACL or match clause, including unintended overlaps. Once the route source is OSPF, OSPF's own path-selection rules determine its best candidate before RIB comparison. D:Route-maps apply sequence matching and implicitly deny entries that do not match a permitting clause. Once the route source is OSPF, OSPF's own path-selection rules determine its best candidate before RIB comparison.
Question 63 Two OSPF routes for the same prefix have equal protocol preference, but an operator adjusts administrative distance expecting to choose the better OSPF path. After applying the correction, which verification evidence most directly demonstrates that this issue is resolved? Demonstrate matched traffic failing over when an upstream reachability probe fails while unrelated traffic remains unaffected. Confirm `show route-map` matches and compare forwarding for matching and nonmatching packets. Compare OSPF route type, area and total cost before showing the selected next hop. Verify the route-map sequence counters and redistributed prefix set with one matched and one previously unmatched approved route. ExplanationCorrect Answer C:Compare OSPF route type, area and total cost before showing the selected next hop. This checks the affected traffic or control-plane behavior, not merely a generic up/down indicator. The underlying mechanism is: Once the route source is OSPF, OSPF's own path-selection rules determine its best candidate before RIB comparison. Other Answers A:Demonstrate matched traffic failing over when an upstream reachability probe fails while unrelated traffic remains unaffected. Once the route source is OSPF, OSPF's own path-selection rules determine its best candidate before RIB comparison. B:Confirm `show route-map` matches and compare forwarding for matching and nonmatching packets. Once the route source is OSPF, OSPF's own path-selection rules determine its best candidate before RIB comparison. D:Verify the route-map sequence counters and redistributed prefix set with one matched and one previously unmatched approved route. Once the route source is OSPF, OSPF's own path-selection rules determine its best candidate before RIB comparison.
Question 64 Two OSPF routes for the same prefix have equal protocol preference, but an operator adjusts administrative distance expecting to choose the better OSPF path. Which lasting design or operational safeguard best prevents this particular issue from recurring? Map summary direction and receiver neighbors explicitly during routing design review. Regression-test the default route-map outcome whenever the match policy is edited. Use nonoverlapping match objects and negative test cases for every source-sensitive policy. Separate intraprotocol metric troubleshooting from interprotocol AD policy decisions. ExplanationCorrect Answer D:Separate intraprotocol metric troubleshooting from interprotocol AD policy decisions. This addresses the recurring cause: Once the route source is OSPF, OSPF's own path-selection rules determine its best candidate before RIB comparison. A targeted acceptance check is: Compare OSPF route type, area and total cost before showing the selected next hop. Other Answers A:Map summary direction and receiver neighbors explicitly during routing design review. Once the route source is OSPF, OSPF's own path-selection rules determine its best candidate before RIB comparison. B:Regression-test the default route-map outcome whenever the match policy is edited. Once the route source is OSPF, OSPF's own path-selection rules determine its best candidate before RIB comparison. C:Use nonoverlapping match objects and negative test cases for every source-sensitive policy. Once the route source is OSPF, OSPF's own path-selection rules determine its best candidate before RIB comparison.
Question 65 A branch connected route is redistributed into OSPF but gets re-imported from EIGRP at a second border even though the original route still exists locally. Which corrective action most directly resolves the documented failure without suppressing unrelated safeguards? Use one redistribution owner for the prefix and tag/filter competing external copies at other borders. 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. Constrain the PBR match list to the approved source subnet and validate the applied route-map sequence. ExplanationCorrect Answer A:Use one redistribution owner for the prefix and tag/filter competing external copies at other borders. Redistributing the same origin from multiple protocols can cause multiple external candidates and route-feedback hazards. Trace one prefix through both borders and confirm only the intended original source is exported. Other Answers B:Tag routes at the first redistribution point and explicitly filter that tag on the return boundary. Redistributing the same origin from multiple protocols can cause multiple external candidates and route-feedback hazards. C:Use PBR next-hop availability checking or reachability tracking supported by the platform instead of trusting link-up alone. Redistributing the same origin from multiple protocols can cause multiple external candidates and route-feedback hazards. D:Constrain the PBR match list to the approved source subnet and validate the applied route-map sequence. Redistributing the same origin from multiple protocols can cause multiple external candidates and route-feedback hazards.
Question 66 A branch connected route is redistributed into OSPF but gets re-imported from EIGRP at a second border even though the original route still exists locally. Which technical mechanism best explains the behavior observed in this scenario? A summary represents a broader address block than its component routes; advertised coverage must match the routing design. Redistributing the same origin from multiple protocols can cause multiple external candidates and route-feedback hazards. Policy-based routing can override normal destination-based forwarding for packets that meet an applied ingress policy. An up local interface does not establish end-to-end viability of the PBR-selected next hop. ExplanationCorrect Answer B:Redistributing the same origin from multiple protocols can cause multiple external candidates and route-feedback hazards. This explains why the initial condition produces the observed failure. The direct repair is: Use one redistribution owner for the prefix and tag/filter competing external copies at other borders. Validate through: Trace one prefix through both borders and confirm only the intended original source is exported. Other Answers A:A summary represents a broader address block than its component routes; advertised coverage must match the routing design. Redistributing the same origin from multiple protocols can cause multiple external candidates and route-feedback hazards. C:Policy-based routing can override normal destination-based forwarding for packets that meet an applied ingress policy. Redistributing the same origin from multiple protocols can cause multiple external candidates and route-feedback hazards. D:An up local interface does not establish end-to-end viability of the PBR-selected next hop. Redistributing the same origin from multiple protocols can cause multiple external candidates and route-feedback hazards.
Question 67 A branch connected route is redistributed into OSPF but gets re-imported from EIGRP at a second border even though the original route still exists locally. After applying the correction, which verification evidence most directly demonstrates that this issue is resolved? Verify BFD session Up state, deliberate forwarding failure detection and corresponding routing reconvergence. Compare OSPF route type, area and total cost before showing the selected next hop. Trace one prefix through both borders and confirm only the intended original source is exported. Fail remote reachability and verify SLA state, track transitions and payment traffic shifting to the healthy next hop. ExplanationCorrect Answer C:Trace one prefix through both borders and confirm only the intended original source is exported. This checks the affected traffic or control-plane behavior, not merely a generic up/down indicator. The underlying mechanism is: Redistributing the same origin from multiple protocols can cause multiple external candidates and route-feedback hazards. Other Answers A:Verify BFD session Up state, deliberate forwarding failure detection and corresponding routing reconvergence. Redistributing the same origin from multiple protocols can cause multiple external candidates and route-feedback hazards. B:Compare OSPF route type, area and total cost before showing the selected next hop. Redistributing the same origin from multiple protocols can cause multiple external candidates and route-feedback hazards. D:Fail remote reachability and verify SLA state, track transitions and payment traffic shifting to the healthy next hop. Redistributing the same origin from multiple protocols can cause multiple external candidates and route-feedback hazards.
Question 68 A branch connected route is redistributed into OSPF but gets re-imported from EIGRP at a second border even though the original route still exists locally. Which lasting design or operational safeguard best prevents this particular issue from recurring? Use track-aware PBR with documented probe targets and scheduled remote failure tests. Separate intraprotocol metric troubleshooting from interprotocol AD policy decisions. Pair traffic-steering policies with tested upstream reachability criteria and fallback forwarding. Maintain an explicit per-prefix redistribution ownership matrix across protocol boundaries. ExplanationCorrect Answer D:Maintain an explicit per-prefix redistribution ownership matrix across protocol boundaries. This addresses the recurring cause: Redistributing the same origin from multiple protocols can cause multiple external candidates and route-feedback hazards. A targeted acceptance check is: Trace one prefix through both borders and confirm only the intended original source is exported. Other Answers A:Use track-aware PBR with documented probe targets and scheduled remote failure tests. Redistributing the same origin from multiple protocols can cause multiple external candidates and route-feedback hazards. B:Separate intraprotocol metric troubleshooting from interprotocol AD policy decisions. Redistributing the same origin from multiple protocols can cause multiple external candidates and route-feedback hazards. C:Pair traffic-steering policies with tested upstream reachability criteria and fallback forwarding. Redistributing the same origin from multiple protocols can cause multiple external candidates and route-feedback hazards.
Question 69 An EIGRP summary is configured on the wrong branch-facing interface and the campus never receives the intended aggregate. Which corrective action most directly resolves the documented failure without suppressing unrelated safeguards? Attach summarization to the actual outbound interface toward the recipient and check release-dependent syntax. Inspect the ingress interface's PBR route-map and correct the matched next-hop action for the affected source. Constrain summary advertisement to the intended reachable coverage or install the needed more-specific reachability design. Use PBR next-hop availability checking or reachability tracking supported by the platform instead of trusting link-up alone. ExplanationCorrect Answer A:Attach summarization to the actual outbound interface toward the recipient and check release-dependent syntax. EIGRP interface summarization affects advertisements leaving the configured interface, not all neighbors globally. Inspect advertisements at the receiving peer and its installed summary route after changing the interface attachment. Other Answers B:Inspect the ingress interface's PBR route-map and correct the matched next-hop action for the affected source. EIGRP interface summarization affects advertisements leaving the configured interface, not all neighbors globally. C:Constrain summary advertisement to the intended reachable coverage or install the needed more-specific reachability design. EIGRP interface summarization affects advertisements leaving the configured interface, not all neighbors globally. D:Use PBR next-hop availability checking or reachability tracking supported by the platform instead of trusting link-up alone. EIGRP interface summarization affects advertisements leaving the configured interface, not all neighbors globally.
Question 70 An EIGRP summary is configured on the wrong branch-facing interface and the campus never receives the intended aggregate. Which technical mechanism best explains the behavior observed in this scenario? Once the route source is OSPF, OSPF's own path-selection rules determine its best candidate before RIB comparison. EIGRP interface summarization affects advertisements leaving the configured interface, not all neighbors globally. An up local interface does not establish end-to-end viability of the PBR-selected next hop. Unfiltered redistribution can leak internal connected routes regardless of whether they are useful or appropriate externally. ExplanationCorrect Answer B:EIGRP interface summarization affects advertisements leaving the configured interface, not all neighbors globally. This explains why the initial condition produces the observed failure. The direct repair is: Attach summarization to the actual outbound interface toward the recipient and check release-dependent syntax. Validate through: Inspect advertisements at the receiving peer and its installed summary route after changing the interface attachment. Other Answers A:Once the route source is OSPF, OSPF's own path-selection rules determine its best candidate before RIB comparison. EIGRP interface summarization affects advertisements leaving the configured interface, not all neighbors globally. C:An up local interface does not establish end-to-end viability of the PBR-selected next hop. EIGRP interface summarization affects advertisements leaving the configured interface, not all neighbors globally. D:Unfiltered redistribution can leak internal connected routes regardless of whether they are useful or appropriate externally. EIGRP interface summarization affects advertisements leaving the configured interface, not all neighbors globally.
