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.
Question 71 An EIGRP summary is configured on the wrong branch-facing interface and the campus never receives the intended aggregate. After applying the correction, which verification evidence most directly demonstrates that this issue is resolved? Display the actual route-map match counters and confirm the expected tag is attached to each new route. Demonstrate matched traffic failing over when an upstream reachability probe fails while unrelated traffic remains unaffected. Inspect advertisements at the receiving peer and its installed summary route after changing the interface attachment. Inspect received prefixes at the external peer and show the management subnet absent while customer prefixes remain. ExplanationCorrect Answer C:Inspect advertisements at the receiving peer and its installed summary route after changing the interface attachment. This checks the affected traffic or control-plane behavior, not merely a generic up/down indicator. The underlying mechanism is: EIGRP interface summarization affects advertisements leaving the configured interface, not all neighbors globally. Other Answers A:Display the actual route-map match counters and confirm the expected tag is attached to each new route. EIGRP interface summarization affects advertisements leaving the configured interface, not all neighbors globally. B:Demonstrate matched traffic failing over when an upstream reachability probe fails while unrelated traffic remains unaffected. EIGRP interface summarization affects advertisements leaving the configured interface, not all neighbors globally. D:Inspect received prefixes at the external peer and show the management subnet absent while customer prefixes remain. EIGRP interface summarization affects advertisements leaving the configured interface, not all neighbors globally.
Question 72 An EIGRP summary is configured on the wrong branch-facing interface and the campus never receives the intended aggregate. Which lasting design or operational safeguard best prevents this particular issue from recurring? Maintain route ownership and tag/filter policy at each redistribution boundary with bidirectional loop tests. Use nonoverlapping match objects and negative test cases for every source-sensitive policy. Use track-aware PBR with documented probe targets and scheduled remote failure tests. Map summary direction and receiver neighbors explicitly during routing design review. ExplanationCorrect Answer D:Map summary direction and receiver neighbors explicitly during routing design review. This addresses the recurring cause: EIGRP interface summarization affects advertisements leaving the configured interface, not all neighbors globally. A targeted acceptance check is: Inspect advertisements at the receiving peer and its installed summary route after changing the interface attachment. Other Answers A:Maintain route ownership and tag/filter policy at each redistribution boundary with bidirectional loop tests. EIGRP interface summarization affects advertisements leaving the configured interface, not all neighbors globally. B:Use nonoverlapping match objects and negative test cases for every source-sensitive policy. EIGRP interface summarization affects advertisements leaving the configured interface, not all neighbors globally. C:Use track-aware PBR with documented probe targets and scheduled remote failure tests. EIGRP interface summarization affects advertisements leaving the configured interface, not all neighbors globally.
Question 73 Traffic from a medical device subnet should use a private circuit, but an overly broad PBR access list also matches guest networks. Which corrective action most directly resolves the documented failure without suppressing unrelated safeguards? Constrain the PBR match list to the approved source subnet and validate the applied route-map sequence. Check the route-map attachment direction and the match clauses for those prefixes before changing the tag value. Apply a narrowly scoped outbound prefix policy for the peer to include only explicitly approved networks. Inspect OSPF path type and cost instead of changing interprotocol administrative distance. ExplanationCorrect Answer A:Constrain the PBR match list to the approved source subnet and validate the applied route-map sequence. Policy route-map actions operate on the traffic matched by the ACL or match clause, including unintended overlaps. Test one authorized medical flow and one guest flow, observing their distinct next hops and policy counters. Other Answers B:Check the route-map attachment direction and the match clauses for those prefixes before changing the tag value. Policy route-map actions operate on the traffic matched by the ACL or match clause, including unintended overlaps. C:Apply a narrowly scoped outbound prefix policy for the peer to include only explicitly approved networks. Policy route-map actions operate on the traffic matched by the ACL or match clause, including unintended overlaps. D:Inspect OSPF path type and cost instead of changing interprotocol administrative distance. Policy route-map actions operate on the traffic matched by the ACL or match clause, including unintended overlaps.
Question 74 Traffic from a medical device subnet should use a private circuit, but an overly broad PBR access list also matches guest networks. Which technical mechanism best explains the behavior observed in this scenario? Redistributing the same origin from multiple protocols can cause multiple external candidates and route-feedback hazards. Policy route-map actions operate on the traffic matched by the ACL or match clause, including unintended overlaps. Unfiltered redistribution can leak internal connected routes regardless of whether they are useful or appropriate externally. Route-maps apply sequence matching and implicitly deny entries that do not match a permitting clause. ExplanationCorrect Answer B:Policy route-map actions operate on the traffic matched by the ACL or match clause, including unintended overlaps. This explains why the initial condition produces the observed failure. The direct repair is: Constrain the PBR match list to the approved source subnet and validate the applied route-map sequence. Validate through: Test one authorized medical flow and one guest flow, observing their distinct next hops and policy counters. Other Answers A:Redistributing the same origin from multiple protocols can cause multiple external candidates and route-feedback hazards. Policy route-map actions operate on the traffic matched by the ACL or match clause, including unintended overlaps. C:Unfiltered redistribution can leak internal connected routes regardless of whether they are useful or appropriate externally. Policy route-map actions operate on the traffic matched by the ACL or match clause, including unintended overlaps. D:Route-maps apply sequence matching and implicitly deny entries that do not match a permitting clause. Policy route-map actions operate on the traffic matched by the ACL or match clause, including unintended overlaps.
Question 75 Traffic from a medical device subnet should use a private circuit, but an overly broad PBR access list also matches guest networks. After applying the correction, which verification evidence most directly demonstrates that this issue is resolved? Inspect advertisements at the receiving peer and its installed summary route after changing the interface attachment. Demonstrate matched traffic failing over when an upstream reachability probe fails while unrelated traffic remains unaffected. Test one authorized medical flow and one guest flow, observing their distinct next hops and policy counters. Inspect received prefixes at the external peer and show the management subnet absent while customer prefixes remain. ExplanationCorrect Answer C:Test one authorized medical flow and one guest flow, observing their distinct next hops and policy counters. This checks the affected traffic or control-plane behavior, not merely a generic up/down indicator. The underlying mechanism is: Policy route-map actions operate on the traffic matched by the ACL or match clause, including unintended overlaps. Other Answers A:Inspect advertisements at the receiving peer and its installed summary route after changing the interface attachment. Policy route-map actions operate on the traffic matched by the ACL or match clause, including unintended overlaps. B:Demonstrate matched traffic failing over when an upstream reachability probe fails while unrelated traffic remains unaffected. Policy route-map actions operate on the traffic matched by the ACL or match clause, including unintended overlaps. D:Inspect received prefixes at the external peer and show the management subnet absent while customer prefixes remain. Policy route-map actions operate on the traffic matched by the ACL or match clause, including unintended overlaps.
Question 76 Traffic from a medical device subnet should use a private circuit, but an overly broad PBR access list also matches guest networks. Which lasting design or operational safeguard best prevents this particular issue from recurring? Add source-based forwarding tests to change validation for every PBR deployment. Standardize explicit seed metrics and document route source assumptions for redistribution. Use approved BFD profiles and avoid untested aggressive timers on constrained links. Use nonoverlapping match objects and negative test cases for every source-sensitive policy. ExplanationCorrect Answer D:Use nonoverlapping match objects and negative test cases for every source-sensitive policy. This addresses the recurring cause: Policy route-map actions operate on the traffic matched by the ACL or match clause, including unintended overlaps. A targeted acceptance check is: Test one authorized medical flow and one guest flow, observing their distinct next hops and policy counters. Other Answers A:Add source-based forwarding tests to change validation for every PBR deployment. Policy route-map actions operate on the traffic matched by the ACL or match clause, including unintended overlaps. B:Standardize explicit seed metrics and document route source assumptions for redistribution. Policy route-map actions operate on the traffic matched by the ACL or match clause, including unintended overlaps. C:Use approved BFD profiles and avoid untested aggressive timers on constrained links. Policy route-map actions operate on the traffic matched by the ACL or match clause, including unintended overlaps.
Question 77 EIGRP peers over a new routed link exchange IP packets but never become neighbors; their configured autonomous-system values differ. Which corrective action most directly resolves the documented failure without suppressing unrelated safeguards? Correct the EIGRP autonomous-system membership or named address-family relationship to match the intended adjacency. Find the nonreplying neighbor and solve the reachability or query-scope failure rather than raising all timers blindly. Enable the intended IPv6 address-family and its interface activation in the named EIGRP configuration. Do not treat this backup as a feasible successor; verify an alternative path or allow query-based recalculation. ExplanationCorrect Answer A:Correct the EIGRP autonomous-system membership or named address-family relationship to match the intended adjacency. EIGRP neighborship requires compatible AS or address-family settings on participating interfaces. Confirm the two devices appear in `show ip eigrp neighbors` with stable hold time and exchange routes. Other Answers B:Find the nonreplying neighbor and solve the reachability or query-scope failure rather than raising all timers blindly. EIGRP neighborship requires compatible AS or address-family settings on participating interfaces. C:Enable the intended IPv6 address-family and its interface activation in the named EIGRP configuration. EIGRP neighborship requires compatible AS or address-family settings on participating interfaces. D:Do not treat this backup as a feasible successor; verify an alternative path or allow query-based recalculation. EIGRP neighborship requires compatible AS or address-family settings on participating interfaces.
Question 78 EIGRP peers over a new routed link exchange IP packets but never become neighbors; their configured autonomous-system values differ. Which technical mechanism best explains the behavior observed in this scenario? Named EIGRP uses address-family and AF-interface configuration scopes; global IPv4 activation does not imply IPv6 neighborship. 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. DUAL waits for replies before completing an active diffusing computation; missing replies can trigger SIA handling. ExplanationCorrect Answer B:EIGRP neighborship requires compatible AS or address-family settings on participating interfaces. This explains why the initial condition produces the observed failure. The direct repair is: Correct the EIGRP autonomous-system membership or named address-family relationship to match the intended adjacency. Validate through: Confirm the two devices appear in `show ip eigrp neighbors` with stable hold time and exchange routes. Other Answers A:Named EIGRP uses address-family and AF-interface configuration scopes; global IPv4 activation does not imply IPv6 neighborship. EIGRP neighborship requires compatible AS or address-family settings on participating interfaces. C:Unequal-cost EIGRP load balancing is constrained by feasible-successor eligibility as well as variance limits. EIGRP neighborship requires compatible AS or address-family settings on participating interfaces. D:DUAL waits for replies before completing an active diffusing computation; missing replies can trigger SIA handling. EIGRP neighborship requires compatible AS or address-family settings on participating interfaces.
Question 79 EIGRP peers over a new routed link exchange IP packets but never become neighbors; their configured autonomous-system values differ. After applying the correction, which verification evidence most directly demonstrates that this issue is resolved? Confirm IPv6 EIGRP neighbor and route displays show the expected link and prefixes. Compare effective interface bandwidth/delay and resultant route metric before and after correction. Confirm the two devices appear in `show ip eigrp neighbors` with stable hold time and exchange routes. Correlate the active topology entry, outstanding queries, neighbor resets and underlying transport loss. ExplanationCorrect Answer C:Confirm the two devices appear in `show ip eigrp neighbors` with stable hold time and exchange routes. This checks the affected traffic or control-plane behavior, not merely a generic up/down indicator. The underlying mechanism is: EIGRP neighborship requires compatible AS or address-family settings on participating interfaces. Other Answers A:Confirm IPv6 EIGRP neighbor and route displays show the expected link and prefixes. EIGRP neighborship requires compatible AS or address-family settings on participating interfaces. B:Compare effective interface bandwidth/delay and resultant route metric before and after correction. EIGRP neighborship requires compatible AS or address-family settings on participating interfaces. D:Correlate the active topology entry, outstanding queries, neighbor resets and underlying transport loss. EIGRP neighborship requires compatible AS or address-family settings on participating interfaces.
Question 80 EIGRP peers over a new routed link exchange IP packets but never become neighbors; their configured autonomous-system values differ. Which lasting design or operational safeguard best prevents this particular issue from recurring? Document feasibility and variance checks in the multipath deployment standard. Evaluate reported-distance feasibility when designing quick failover paths. Define documented unequal-cost load-balancing policy and validate it on the target software version. Validate routing process and address-family identity in the circuit turn-up checklist. ExplanationCorrect Answer D:Validate routing process and address-family identity in the circuit turn-up checklist. This addresses the recurring cause: EIGRP neighborship requires compatible AS or address-family settings on participating interfaces. A targeted acceptance check is: Confirm the two devices appear in `show ip eigrp neighbors` with stable hold time and exchange routes. Other Answers A:Document feasibility and variance checks in the multipath deployment standard. EIGRP neighborship requires compatible AS or address-family settings on participating interfaces. B:Evaluate reported-distance feasibility when designing quick failover paths. EIGRP neighborship requires compatible AS or address-family settings on participating interfaces. C:Define documented unequal-cost load-balancing policy and validate it on the target software version. EIGRP neighborship requires compatible AS or address-family settings on participating interfaces.
