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.
Question 81 A pair of EIGRP routers uses MD5 authentication but one key chain names a different active key string, preventing neighbor formation. Which corrective action most directly resolves the documented failure without suppressing unrelated safeguards? Synchronize the active authentication keys and key-chain configuration on both peers. Remove unintended passive treatment for the transit interface while keeping LAN interfaces passive as planned. Check the variance ratio and feasible-successor condition rather than assuming variance bypasses DUAL loop checks. Configure appropriate EIGRP stub behavior at the leaf routers and verify expected advertised route categories. ExplanationCorrect Answer A:Synchronize the active authentication keys and key-chain configuration on both peers. Authentication failure causes otherwise correctly addressed EIGRP hello packets to be rejected rather than forming a neighbor. Inspect EIGRP authentication debugging and verify stable neighbor establishment after aligned keys. Other Answers B:Remove unintended passive treatment for the transit interface while keeping LAN interfaces passive as planned. Authentication failure causes otherwise correctly addressed EIGRP hello packets to be rejected rather than forming a neighbor. C:Check the variance ratio and feasible-successor condition rather than assuming variance bypasses DUAL loop checks. Authentication failure causes otherwise correctly addressed EIGRP hello packets to be rejected rather than forming a neighbor. D:Configure appropriate EIGRP stub behavior at the leaf routers and verify expected advertised route categories. Authentication failure causes otherwise correctly addressed EIGRP hello packets to be rejected rather than forming a neighbor.
Question 82 A pair of EIGRP routers uses MD5 authentication but one key chain names a different active key string, preventing neighbor formation. Which technical mechanism best explains the behavior observed in this scenario? Passive EIGRP interfaces do not transmit the neighbor discovery traffic needed for a routing adjacency. Authentication failure causes otherwise correctly addressed EIGRP hello packets to be rejected rather than forming a neighbor. Unequal-cost EIGRP load balancing is constrained by feasible-successor eligibility as well as variance limits. Named EIGRP uses address-family and AF-interface configuration scopes; global IPv4 activation does not imply IPv6 neighborship. ExplanationCorrect Answer B:Authentication failure causes otherwise correctly addressed EIGRP hello packets to be rejected rather than forming a neighbor. This explains why the initial condition produces the observed failure. The direct repair is: Synchronize the active authentication keys and key-chain configuration on both peers. Validate through: Inspect EIGRP authentication debugging and verify stable neighbor establishment after aligned keys. Other Answers A:Passive EIGRP interfaces do not transmit the neighbor discovery traffic needed for a routing adjacency. Authentication failure causes otherwise correctly addressed EIGRP hello packets to be rejected rather than forming a neighbor. C:Unequal-cost EIGRP load balancing is constrained by feasible-successor eligibility as well as variance limits. Authentication failure causes otherwise correctly addressed EIGRP hello packets to be rejected rather than forming a neighbor. D:Named EIGRP uses address-family and AF-interface configuration scopes; global IPv4 activation does not imply IPv6 neighborship. Authentication failure causes otherwise correctly addressed EIGRP hello packets to be rejected rather than forming a neighbor.
Question 83 A pair of EIGRP routers uses MD5 authentication but one key chain names a different active key string, preventing neighbor formation. 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. Restore a stable uplink neighbor and verify the summarized branch route is received. Inspect EIGRP authentication debugging and verify stable neighbor establishment after aligned keys. Inspect outbound advertisements and downstream topology entries for the affected specific routes. ExplanationCorrect Answer C:Inspect EIGRP authentication debugging and verify stable neighbor establishment after aligned keys. This checks the affected traffic or control-plane behavior, not merely a generic up/down indicator. The underlying mechanism is: Authentication failure causes otherwise correctly addressed EIGRP hello packets to be rejected rather than forming a neighbor. Other Answers A:Compare effective interface bandwidth/delay and resultant route metric before and after correction. Authentication failure causes otherwise correctly addressed EIGRP hello packets to be rejected rather than forming a neighbor. B:Restore a stable uplink neighbor and verify the summarized branch route is received. Authentication failure causes otherwise correctly addressed EIGRP hello packets to be rejected rather than forming a neighbor. D:Inspect outbound advertisements and downstream topology entries for the affected specific routes. Authentication failure causes otherwise correctly addressed EIGRP hello packets to be rejected rather than forming a neighbor.
Question 84 A pair of EIGRP routers uses MD5 authentication but one key chain names a different active key string, preventing neighbor formation. Which lasting design or operational safeguard best prevents this particular issue from recurring? Define documented unequal-cost load-balancing policy and validate it on the target software version. Record hub-spoke network type and split-horizon requirements in the overlay baseline. Use explicit transit-interface exception lists for passive-interface default configurations. Manage shared routing authentication secrets and rollover lifetimes as one coordinated change. ExplanationCorrect Answer D:Manage shared routing authentication secrets and rollover lifetimes as one coordinated change. This addresses the recurring cause: Authentication failure causes otherwise correctly addressed EIGRP hello packets to be rejected rather than forming a neighbor. A targeted acceptance check is: Inspect EIGRP authentication debugging and verify stable neighbor establishment after aligned keys. Other Answers A:Define documented unequal-cost load-balancing policy and validate it on the target software version. Authentication failure causes otherwise correctly addressed EIGRP hello packets to be rejected rather than forming a neighbor. B:Record hub-spoke network type and split-horizon requirements in the overlay baseline. Authentication failure causes otherwise correctly addressed EIGRP hello packets to be rejected rather than forming a neighbor. C:Use explicit transit-interface exception lists for passive-interface default configurations. Authentication failure causes otherwise correctly addressed EIGRP hello packets to be rejected rather than forming a neighbor.
Question 85 An EIGRP router has a feasible distance of 12,000 to a prefix; backup neighbor reported distance is 13,000 and total metric 19,000. Which corrective action most directly resolves the documented failure without suppressing unrelated safeguards? Do not treat this backup as a feasible successor; verify an alternative path or allow query-based recalculation. Enable the intended IPv6 address-family and its interface activation in the named EIGRP configuration. Check EIGRP distribute lists and summary advertisements toward that downstream neighbor. Verify platform support and the EIGRP traffic-share behavior and metric inputs rather than changing BGP attributes. ExplanationCorrect Answer A:Do not treat this backup as a feasible successor; verify an alternative path or allow query-based recalculation. EIGRP's feasible condition requires the neighbor's reported distance to be strictly less than the current feasible distance. Inspect the topology table and show the alternative is not labeled feasible despite its reachable-looking metric. Other Answers B:Enable the intended IPv6 address-family and its interface activation in the named EIGRP configuration. EIGRP's feasible condition requires the neighbor's reported distance to be strictly less than the current feasible distance. C:Check EIGRP distribute lists and summary advertisements toward that downstream neighbor. EIGRP's feasible condition requires the neighbor's reported distance to be strictly less than the current feasible distance. D:Verify platform support and the EIGRP traffic-share behavior and metric inputs rather than changing BGP attributes. EIGRP's feasible condition requires the neighbor's reported distance to be strictly less than the current feasible distance.
Question 86 An EIGRP router has a feasible distance of 12,000 to a prefix; backup neighbor reported distance is 13,000 and total metric 19,000. Which technical mechanism best explains the behavior observed in this scenario? Passive EIGRP interfaces do not transmit the neighbor discovery traffic needed for a routing adjacency. EIGRP's feasible condition requires the neighbor's reported distance to be strictly less than the current feasible distance. EIGRP variance and traffic-share mechanisms can influence unequal-cost path installation and forwarding. Stub operation bounds query propagation through nontransit spokes and can reduce stuck-in-active exposure. ExplanationCorrect Answer B:EIGRP's feasible condition requires the neighbor's reported distance to be strictly less than the current feasible distance. This explains why the initial condition produces the observed failure. The direct repair is: Do not treat this backup as a feasible successor; verify an alternative path or allow query-based recalculation. Validate through: Inspect the topology table and show the alternative is not labeled feasible despite its reachable-looking metric. Other Answers A:Passive EIGRP interfaces do not transmit the neighbor discovery traffic needed for a routing adjacency. EIGRP's feasible condition requires the neighbor's reported distance to be strictly less than the current feasible distance. C:EIGRP variance and traffic-share mechanisms can influence unequal-cost path installation and forwarding. EIGRP's feasible condition requires the neighbor's reported distance to be strictly less than the current feasible distance. D:Stub operation bounds query propagation through nontransit spokes and can reduce stuck-in-active exposure. EIGRP's feasible condition requires the neighbor's reported distance to be strictly less than the current feasible distance.
Question 87 An EIGRP router has a feasible distance of 12,000 to a prefix; backup neighbor reported distance is 13,000 and total metric 19,000. After applying the correction, which verification evidence most directly demonstrates that this issue is resolved? Inspect outbound advertisements and downstream topology entries for the affected specific routes. Compare RD, FD and computed metrics and show only the eligible path entering the routing table. Inspect the topology table and show the alternative is not labeled feasible despite its reachable-looking metric. Use the neighbor and protocol displays to confirm K-value agreement and stable route exchange. ExplanationCorrect Answer C:Inspect the topology table and show the alternative is not labeled feasible despite its reachable-looking metric. This checks the affected traffic or control-plane behavior, not merely a generic up/down indicator. The underlying mechanism is: EIGRP's feasible condition requires the neighbor's reported distance to be strictly less than the current feasible distance. Other Answers A:Inspect outbound advertisements and downstream topology entries for the affected specific routes. EIGRP's feasible condition requires the neighbor's reported distance to be strictly less than the current feasible distance. B:Compare RD, FD and computed metrics and show only the eligible path entering the routing table. EIGRP's feasible condition requires the neighbor's reported distance to be strictly less than the current feasible distance. D:Use the neighbor and protocol displays to confirm K-value agreement and stable route exchange. EIGRP's feasible condition requires the neighbor's reported distance to be strictly less than the current feasible distance.
Question 88 An EIGRP router has a feasible distance of 12,000 to a prefix; backup neighbor reported distance is 13,000 and total metric 19,000. Which lasting design or operational safeguard best prevents this particular issue from recurring? Use explicit transit-interface exception lists for passive-interface default configurations. Define documented unequal-cost load-balancing policy and validate it on the target software version. Bound query scope with hierarchy or stubs and monitor routing-control plane congestion. Evaluate reported-distance feasibility when designing quick failover paths. ExplanationCorrect Answer D:Evaluate reported-distance feasibility when designing quick failover paths. This addresses the recurring cause: EIGRP's feasible condition requires the neighbor's reported distance to be strictly less than the current feasible distance. A targeted acceptance check is: Inspect the topology table and show the alternative is not labeled feasible despite its reachable-looking metric. Other Answers A:Use explicit transit-interface exception lists for passive-interface default configurations. EIGRP's feasible condition requires the neighbor's reported distance to be strictly less than the current feasible distance. B:Define documented unequal-cost load-balancing policy and validate it on the target software version. EIGRP's feasible condition requires the neighbor's reported distance to be strictly less than the current feasible distance. C:Bound query scope with hierarchy or stubs and monitor routing-control plane congestion. EIGRP's feasible condition requires the neighbor's reported distance to be strictly less than the current feasible distance.
Question 89 A branch route stays Active during a WAN failure because queries spread into dozens of leaf sites that should never provide transit routes. Which corrective action most directly resolves the documented failure without suppressing unrelated safeguards? Configure appropriate EIGRP stub behavior at the leaf routers and verify expected advertised route categories. Correct the interface bandwidth reference and validate EIGRP composite metric components, not the physical speed alone. Review split horizon on the hub multipoint interface and apply the design-appropriate exception only where needed. Remove unintended passive treatment for the transit interface while keeping LAN interfaces passive as planned. ExplanationCorrect Answer A:Configure appropriate EIGRP stub behavior at the leaf routers and verify expected advertised route categories. Stub operation bounds query propagation through nontransit spokes and can reduce stuck-in-active exposure. Verify stub neighbor status and that query propagation no longer crosses the leaf sites during a controlled failover. Other Answers B:Correct the interface bandwidth reference and validate EIGRP composite metric components, not the physical speed alone. Stub operation bounds query propagation through nontransit spokes and can reduce stuck-in-active exposure. C:Review split horizon on the hub multipoint interface and apply the design-appropriate exception only where needed. Stub operation bounds query propagation through nontransit spokes and can reduce stuck-in-active exposure. D:Remove unintended passive treatment for the transit interface while keeping LAN interfaces passive as planned. Stub operation bounds query propagation through nontransit spokes and can reduce stuck-in-active exposure.
Question 90 A branch route stays Active during a WAN failure because queries spread into dozens of leaf sites that should never provide transit routes. Which technical mechanism best explains the behavior observed in this scenario? A feasible path in the local topology does not guarantee its more-specific prefix is advertised past outbound policy. Stub operation bounds query propagation through nontransit spokes and can reduce stuck-in-active exposure. Passive EIGRP interfaces do not transmit the neighbor discovery traffic needed for a routing adjacency. Split horizon ordinarily prevents re-advertising a route out the interface on which it was learned. ExplanationCorrect Answer B:Stub operation bounds query propagation through nontransit spokes and can reduce stuck-in-active exposure. This explains why the initial condition produces the observed failure. The direct repair is: Configure appropriate EIGRP stub behavior at the leaf routers and verify expected advertised route categories. Validate through: Verify stub neighbor status and that query propagation no longer crosses the leaf sites during a controlled failover. Other Answers A:A feasible path in the local topology does not guarantee its more-specific prefix is advertised past outbound policy. Stub operation bounds query propagation through nontransit spokes and can reduce stuck-in-active exposure. C:Passive EIGRP interfaces do not transmit the neighbor discovery traffic needed for a routing adjacency. Stub operation bounds query propagation through nontransit spokes and can reduce stuck-in-active exposure. D:Split horizon ordinarily prevents re-advertising a route out the interface on which it was learned. Stub operation bounds query propagation through nontransit spokes and can reduce stuck-in-active exposure.
