exam questions

Exam 300-410 All Questions

View all questions & answers for the 300-410 exam

Exam 300-410 topic 1 question 444 discussion

Actual exam question from Cisco's 300-410
Question #: 444
Topic #: 1
[All 300-410 Questions]



Refer to the exhibit. Routers R1 and R2 have established a network adjacency using EIGRP, and both routers are advertising subnets to its neighbor. After issuing the show ip EIGRP topology all-links command in R1, some prefixes are not showing R2 as a successor. Which action resolves the issue?

  • A. Configure the network statement on the neighbor.
  • B. Rectify the incorrect router ID in R2.
  • C. Resolve the incorrect metric on the link.
  • D. Enable split-horizon.
Show Suggested Answer Hide Answer
Suggested Answer: A 🗳️

Comments

Chosen Answer:
This is a voting comment (?). It is better to Upvote an existing comment if you don't have anything to add.
Switch to a voting comment New
SolidSnake74
Highly Voted 1 year, 10 months ago
Answer is A Can't be B, because if it has been the case, no route at all from R2 would have been learned Can't be C, because a metric mismatch leads in no neighbor relationship and we have Can't be D, Split horizon is enabled by default and it just avoid sharing the network via a same interface it received. It means i can GET routes from R2 but not just sharing them back to R2 via the same interface.
upvoted 16 times
Youssefmetry
1 year, 8 months ago
EIGRP require the K values to match only .. not bandwidth or delay. I think C is a possible answer.
upvoted 2 times
bk989
8 months, 2 weeks ago
look at topology table. It is suggesting adjacecny is up
upvoted 1 times
...
...
...
NLFluke
Most Recent 1 month, 1 week ago
Selected Answer: B
+1 for B. The question implies "both routers are advertising subnets to its neighbor", so we can discard option A.
upvoted 1 times
...
Sammy3637
2 months ago
Selected Answer: B
If the EIGRP adjacency is already formed between R1 and R2, then the issue is likely not related to the network statement. Given that the adjacency is already established, the next most likely cause of the issue is indeed related to the Router ID
upvoted 1 times
Sammy3637
2 months ago
An incorrect Router ID might lead to EIGRP not properly associating routes with R2, even though the adjacency is up. This could explain why R1 sees some routes but not others as being advertised by R2.
upvoted 1 times
...
...
Cpt_Krugel
5 months, 3 weeks ago
Selected Answer: B
Answers is B
upvoted 1 times
...
bb5e783
6 months, 2 weeks ago
Selected Answer: C
I think C is the correct answer. In short, we just need to solve the fact that a certain prefix is not elected as a feasible succesor, don't you think? The condition for being elected as a feasible succesor is FD of the succesor > RD of a certain root.
upvoted 1 times
...
kldoyle97
7 months, 4 weeks ago
"Some prefixes are not showing R2 as a successor" I am looking at the diagram and am not sure what prefixes the exhibit is referring to? Would not choose C or D C - neighborship wouldn't form if K values are not correct/matching D - split horizon is enabled by default A - network statement has already been configured because there are routes learned by R2, unless I'm missing something. B. Not sure, R1- show ip eigrp topology R1 has a router-id of 172.16.10.1 what is the router ID of R2? If it is duplicate, that could be a reason why routes are not showing as a successor
upvoted 1 times
...
bk989
8 months ago
just as fyi I labbed the same lab as JohnnyBingo(below) and had the same exact issue. The D EX routes weren't going to R1 from R2 (like Pietjeplukgeluk mentions), until I made unique router-ids. Answer = B on this one. When Route-ID's are same, the external eigrp routes not showing up. The networks sourced from the router itself are showing up. Therefore SOME prefixes are not showing up (as question mentions). Please lab.
upvoted 2 times
yasmiine
1 week, 3 days ago
i agree with you
upvoted 1 times
...
...
jabal93
8 months, 2 weeks ago
Answer B Routers ID are duplicated. both routers already tried to advertise their LOCAL subnets, which mean A is useless.
upvoted 2 times
...
[Removed]
9 months ago
Selected Answer: A
A is correct
upvoted 2 times
...
Horsefeathers
1 year, 2 months ago
Selected Answer: A
Agree with SolidSnake74
upvoted 3 times
...
[Removed]
1 year, 3 months ago
Selected Answer: B
EIGRP will form adjacency with another router with a matching ID but will not install routes ORIGINATED from that router. It will however install routes that did not originate from that router that it received in the Update.
upvoted 2 times
...
JonnyBingo
1 year, 3 months ago
The Answer is B. Lab'd it. 3 router topology. R1, R2, and R3. R1 and R2 have the same ip addresses as indicated. R2 and R3 have a link between them (201.165.101.1 and .2 respectively. R3 has the 192 addresses on loopback interfaces. When you let EIGRP choose the router-id's all links show up, even the link between R2/R3. When you match the router-id to 1.1.1.1 on R1 and R2, the link between R2 and R3 goes away and you are left with the exact same output that is displayed in the exhibit.
upvoted 1 times
Pietjeplukgeluk
9 months, 2 weeks ago
The question implies routes ARE advertised but NOT showing at R1. This indeed implies a overlap in router ID. If the question did NOT state "and both routers are advertising subnets to its neighbor." So, i will go with B on this one. It seems only EXTERNAL routes D EX routes are impacted by overlapping Router ID. See https://community.cisco.com/t5/routing/eigrp-router-id-importance/td-p/1311143
upvoted 4 times
bk989
8 months, 2 weeks ago
just as fyi I labbed the same lab as JohnnyBingo and had the same exact issue. The DEX routes weren't going to R1 from R2 (like you mentioned), until I made unique router-ids. Answer = B on this one.
upvoted 1 times
...
...
...
ZamanR
1 year, 4 months ago
I think A
upvoted 1 times
...
fizzer
1 year, 7 months ago
Selected Answer: B
Correct answer is B I have just labbed this up, two EIGRP routers with the same router ID, they did not accept each others locally generated routes, however all other EIGRP learned routes that did not originate from them were accepted It does make sense for the receiving router to feel weird receiving a route with its own router ID as the originating router, as soon as I changed the router ID on one of them, they both accepted each others locally generated routes (installed them in the topology table), changed router ID to match again and the routes disappeared again. The reason some routes shows up according to the question is because those routes were not generated by R2
upvoted 4 times
...
[Removed]
1 year, 8 months ago
Selected Answer: A
as explained by solidsnake74. The best answer is A. B, the router ID is different, otherwise no routes would be learned at all, neighborship forms, but no routes learned. C, no neighborship with an error message pointing out K-value mismatch D, no.
upvoted 3 times
...
daloslav
1 year, 10 months ago
Selected Answer: B
If two routers have the same router ID, they can become neighbors but some prefixes (specifically external redistributed prefixes) will be missing.
upvoted 2 times
HungarianDish_111
1 year, 10 months ago
router id R2: 203.0.113.2 (from "sh ip eigrp neigh") router id R1: 172.16.10.1 (from "sh ip eigrp top all") The router ids are different.
upvoted 1 times
bk989
9 months ago
This is the interface-id not router-id
upvoted 2 times
...
Gedson
1 year, 9 months ago
router id R2: 203.0.113.2, Doesn't rourter ID it's interface's ip
upvoted 2 times
...
yellowswan
1 year, 7 months ago
203.0.113.2 is interface address, not RID
upvoted 3 times
...
...
...
Malasxd
1 year, 11 months ago
I didn't get it. The routes do not has R2 as sucessors are directly connected. You cannot change it.
upvoted 3 times
HungarianDish_111
1 year, 11 months ago
Agree. I do not see any incorrect metrics either. I tried to figure it out in the lab, but information about the topology is missing, and thus I can't conclude to any of the answers. In some topology, not all routes are listed as feasible successors due to split-horizont. (Still we would not disable SH just because of that.) https://community.cisco.com/t5/switching/eigrp-topology-table-all-links/td-p/3179536
upvoted 2 times
...
...
Community vote distribution
A (35%)
C (25%)
B (20%)
Other
Most Voted
A voting comment increases the vote count for the chosen answer by one.

Upvoting a comment with a selected answer will also increase the vote count towards that answer by one. So if you see a comment that you already agree with, you can upvote it instead of posting a new comment.

SaveCancel
Loading ...
exam
Someone Bought Contributor Access for:
SY0-701
London, 1 minute ago