Cisco CCNP 350-401 ENCOR EIGRP and OSPF Concepts, Metrics, Areas, and Path Operations Practice Test 2

 

Topic 08 Practice Test 2 covers EIGRP and OSPF Concepts, Metrics, Areas, and Path Operations for Cisco 350-401 ENCOR. For broader exam preparation, review the Cisco 350-401 ENCOR Exam Dumps. Every option includes focused technical reasoning explaining both the Cisco enterprise networking concept and its fit to the scenario.

Question 1

R2 loses its current EIGRP successor, but the topology table already contains a feasible successor for the destination. What is the main convergence advantage? Choose ONE.

1. R2 must move the route to Active before using any backup
2. R2 can immediately use the loop-free backup without first querying all neighbors
3. R2 must wait for an OSPF SPF run
4. R2 can use any alternate path even if it failed the feasibility condition

Correct Answer(s)

 

B

Rationale

1. R2 must move the route to Active before using any backup does not fit. A valid feasible successor exists precisely so DUAL can avoid an Active recomputation for this failure case. case-81 tests eigrp-fast-reroute: recognize how a prequalified feasible successor accelerates EIGRP convergence after successor loss. case-81 remains protocol-specific.
2. R2 can immediately use the loop-free backup without first querying all neighbors is correct. Because DUAL has already verified the feasible successor as loop free, EIGRP can promote it quickly when the successor disappears instead of beginning a full diffusing query process for that destination. case-82 tests eigrp-fast-reroute: recognize how a prequalified feasible successor accelerates EIGRP convergence after successor loss. case-82 remains protocol-specific.
3. R2 must wait for an OSPF SPF run does not fit. OSPF SPF is not part of EIGRP convergence; EIGRP uses DUAL and its topology information. case-83 tests eigrp-fast-reroute: recognize how a prequalified feasible successor accelerates EIGRP convergence after successor loss. case-83 remains protocol-specific.
4. R2 can use any alternate path even if it failed the feasibility condition does not fit. An alternate that fails the feasibility condition lacks the prequalified loop-free status required for immediate feasible-successor use. case-84 tests eigrp-fast-reroute: recognize how a prequalified feasible successor accelerates EIGRP convergence after successor loss. case-84 remains protocol-specific.

 

Question 2

The current EIGRP feasible distance is 5000. A neighbor advertises a reported distance of 5200 for an alternate path. Which conclusion is correct? Choose ONE.

1. the alternate path qualifies because 5200 is close to 5000
2. the alternate automatically becomes the successor
3. reported distance is irrelevant to loop-free backup selection
4. the alternate path does not qualify as a feasible successor

Correct Answer(s)

 

D

Rationale

1. the alternate path qualifies because 5200 is close to 5000 does not fit. The test is an inequality, not an approximation; being numerically close does not satisfy RD < FD. case-85 tests eigrp-feasible-successor-test: evaluate a numeric reported-distance value against the current feasible distance. case-85 remains protocol-specific.
2. the alternate automatically becomes the successor does not fit. A path that fails the feasibility condition cannot be promoted as a prequalified feasible successor merely because it is available. case-86 tests eigrp-feasible-successor-test: evaluate a numeric reported-distance value against the current feasible distance. case-86 remains protocol-specific.
3. reported distance is irrelevant to loop-free backup selection does not fit. Reported distance is the key neighbor metric used by DUAL’s feasibility condition to establish loop-free backup eligibility. case-87 tests eigrp-feasible-successor-test: evaluate a numeric reported-distance value against the current feasible distance. case-87 remains protocol-specific.
4. the alternate path does not qualify as a feasible successor is correct. The feasibility condition requires the neighbor’s reported distance to be strictly less than the current feasible distance. Because 5200 is greater than 5000, this alternate is not a feasible successor. case-88 tests eigrp-feasible-successor-test: evaluate a numeric reported-distance value against the current feasible distance. case-88 remains protocol-specific.

 

Question 3

An EIGRP successor has metric 100 and feasible distance 100. An alternate has total metric 150 and reported distance 70. Variance is 2. What should happen? Choose ONE.

1. the alternate is eligible for installation alongside the successor
2. the alternate is rejected because 150 is not equal to 100
3. the alternate is rejected because its reported distance is below the feasible distance
4. the successor is removed because variance prefers the larger metric

Correct Answer(s)

 

A

Rationale

100. the alternate is eligible for installation alongside the successor is correct. The alternate is loop free because its reported distance, 70, is below the successor feasible distance of 100. Its metric, 150, is also within the variance-2 ceiling of 200, so it is eligible for unequal-cost installation. case-89 tests eigrp-numeric-variance-case: combine a concrete variance threshold with the feasibility condition to judge path installation. case-89 remains protocol-specific.
101. the alternate is rejected because 150 is not equal to 100 does not fit. Variance allows unequal metrics, so equality with the successor is not required when both the feasibility and multiplier tests pass. case-90 tests eigrp-numeric-variance-case: combine a concrete variance threshold with the feasibility condition to judge path installation. case-90 remains protocol-specific.
102. the alternate is rejected because its reported distance is below the feasible distance does not fit. A lower reported distance is exactly what satisfies the feasibility condition; it does not disqualify the alternate. case-91 tests eigrp-numeric-variance-case: combine a concrete variance threshold with the feasibility condition to judge path installation. case-91 remains protocol-specific.
103. the successor is removed because variance prefers the larger metric does not fit. Variance does not make a worse metric preferable; the metric-100 successor remains best while the eligible alternate may be added. case-92 tests eigrp-numeric-variance-case: combine a concrete variance threshold with the feasibility condition to judge path installation. case-92 remains protocol-specific.

 

Question 4

An EIGRP successor has feasible distance 100. A second path has total metric 180 and reported distance 110. Variance is 2. Which rule prevents that second path from being used for unequal-cost load balancing? Choose ONE.

1. the variance threshold fails because 180 is greater than 200
2. EIGRP never permits more than one path
3. the feasibility condition fails because reported distance 110 is not less than 100
4. the path must have a lower hop count than the successor

Correct Answer(s)

 

C

Rationale

1. the variance threshold fails because 180 is greater than 200 does not fit. The arithmetic is reversed: 180 is below 200, so the variance threshold itself is satisfied. case-93 tests eigrp-variance-rejection: identify which of the two EIGRP unequal-cost eligibility tests rejects a candidate. case-93 remains protocol-specific.
2. EIGRP never permits more than one path does not fit. EIGRP supports multiple equal-cost paths and, with variance, can also install qualified unequal-cost paths. case-94 tests eigrp-variance-rejection: identify which of the two EIGRP unequal-cost eligibility tests rejects a candidate. case-94 remains protocol-specific.
3. the feasibility condition fails because reported distance 110 is not less than 100 is correct. Although 180 is within the variance-2 ceiling of 200, the neighbor’s reported distance is 110, which is not less than the current feasible distance of 100. The path therefore fails DUAL’s loop-free feasibility condition. case-95 tests eigrp-variance-rejection: identify which of the two EIGRP unequal-cost eligibility tests rejects a candidate. case-95 remains protocol-specific.
4. the path must have a lower hop count than the successor does not fit. Hop count is not the feasibility-condition comparison used to determine whether the alternate is loop free. case-96 tests eigrp-variance-rejection: identify which of the two EIGRP unequal-cost eligibility tests rejects a candidate. case-96 remains protocol-specific.

 

Question 5

A large EIGRP network wants remote spoke routers to stop acting as transit routers and to limit the routes they advertise back to the hub. Which concept is most directly associated with reducing unnecessary query propagation through those spokes? Choose ONE.

1. OSPF totally stub area
2. EIGRP variance
3. EIGRP stub behavior
4. OSPF virtual link

Correct Answer(s)

 

C

Rationale

1. OSPF totally stub area does not fit. That is an OSPF area construct; it does not control EIGRP query behavior or spoke route advertisements. case-97 tests eigrp-query-boundary: choose the EIGRP design concept that constrains spoke participation and query scope. case-97 remains protocol-specific.
2. EIGRP variance does not fit. Variance controls unequal-cost path installation and has no role in declaring a router nontransit or limiting query propagation. case-98 tests eigrp-query-boundary: choose the EIGRP design concept that constrains spoke participation and query scope. case-98 remains protocol-specific.
3. EIGRP stub behavior is correct. EIGRP stub routers advertise only permitted route categories and signal that they should not be treated as general transit paths. This can constrain the DUAL query domain and improve convergence behavior in hub-and-spoke designs. case-99 tests eigrp-query-boundary: choose the EIGRP design concept that constrains spoke participation and query scope. case-99 remains protocol-specific.
4. OSPF virtual link does not fit. A virtual link repairs logical OSPF backbone continuity; it is unrelated to EIGRP stub signaling. case-100 tests eigrp-query-boundary: choose the EIGRP design concept that constrains spoke participation and query scope. case-100 remains protocol-specific.

 

Question 6

No variance command is configured in an EIGRP routing process. Multiple loop-free paths exist, but their metrics are different. What is the default load-balancing behavior? Choose ONE.

1. only equal-cost paths are eligible by default
2. all loop-free paths are installed regardless of metric
3. the highest-metric path is preferred
4. EIGRP disables multipath forwarding entirely

Correct Answer(s)

 

A

Rationale

1. only equal-cost paths are eligible by default is correct. EIGRP’s default variance is 1, which limits installation to equal-cost routes. Unequal-cost feasible paths require a larger variance value before their metrics can fall within the permitted multiplier. case-101 tests eigrp-default-load-balancing: interpret EIGRP’s default variance value and resulting path eligibility. case-101 remains protocol-specific.
2. all loop-free paths are installed regardless of metric does not fit. Loop freedom alone is not enough for unequal-cost installation; the variance threshold must also admit the path. case-102 tests eigrp-default-load-balancing: interpret EIGRP’s default variance value and resulting path eligibility. case-102 remains protocol-specific.
3. the highest-metric path is preferred does not fit. EIGRP prefers the lower composite metric, not the numerically larger metric. case-103 tests eigrp-default-load-balancing: interpret EIGRP’s default variance value and resulting path eligibility. case-103 remains protocol-specific.
4. EIGRP disables multipath forwarding entirely does not fit. EIGRP supports equal-cost multipath by default; the limitation concerns unequal-cost candidates, not multipath as a whole. case-104 tests eigrp-default-load-balancing: interpret EIGRP’s default variance value and resulting path eligibility. case-104 remains protocol-specific.

 

Question 7

A link inside an OSPF area changes state. Which sequence best describes the protocol’s normal path-operation response? Choose ONE.

1. send DUAL queries until every neighbor replies
2. change variance and install a feasible successor
3. wait for BGP keepalives and rerun best-path selection
4. flood updated link-state information and run SPF against the area LSDB

Correct Answer(s)

 

D

Rationale

1. send DUAL queries until every neighbor replies does not fit. DUAL query/reply behavior belongs to EIGRP and is not OSPF’s link-state recomputation process. case-105 tests ospf-link-change-operation: identify how OSPF propagates a topology event and recomputes paths. case-105 remains protocol-specific.
2. change variance and install a feasible successor does not fit. Variance and feasible successors are EIGRP mechanisms; OSPF relies on LSAs, LSDB synchronization, and SPF. case-106 tests ospf-link-change-operation: identify how OSPF propagates a topology event and recomputes paths. case-106 remains protocol-specific.
3. wait for BGP keepalives and rerun best-path selection does not fit. BGP’s session maintenance and best-path logic are unrelated to OSPF’s response to an intra-area link-state change. case-107 tests ospf-link-change-operation: identify how OSPF propagates a topology event and recomputes paths. case-107 remains protocol-specific.
4. flood updated link-state information and run SPF against the area LSDB is correct. OSPF represents topology with LSAs. When a relevant link state changes, updated information is flooded within scope, routers update their area link-state databases, and SPF recalculates shortest paths from that synchronized topology. case-108 tests ospf-link-change-operation: identify how OSPF propagates a topology event and recomputes paths. case-108 remains protocol-specific.

 

Question 8

Two routers are in the same OSPF area and have converged. What topology property should normally be true before they independently run SPF? Choose ONE.

1. they must have identical routing tables for every external protocol
2. they have synchronized link-state information for that area
3. they must use the same physical outgoing interface
4. they must share one EIGRP feasible distance value

Correct Answer(s)

 

B

Rationale

1. they must have identical routing tables for every external protocol does not fit. OSPF LSDB synchronization concerns OSPF topology information, not identical non-OSPF routing tables on every router. case-109 tests ospf-lsdb-consistency: recognize the common topology view OSPF routers need within an area. case-109 remains protocol-specific.
2. they have synchronized link-state information for that area is correct. OSPF routers in an area exchange and flood LSAs so their area link-state databases converge on the same topology information. Each router then runs SPF from its own perspective to derive local forwarding decisions. case-110 tests ospf-lsdb-consistency: recognize the common topology view OSPF routers need within an area. case-110 remains protocol-specific.
3. they must use the same physical outgoing interface does not fit. Different routers naturally have different local interfaces and next hops even when they share the same area topology database. case-111 tests ospf-lsdb-consistency: recognize the common topology view OSPF routers need within an area. case-111 remains protocol-specific.
4. they must share one EIGRP feasible distance value does not fit. Feasible distance is an EIGRP concept and does not participate in OSPF LSDB synchronization. case-112 tests ospf-lsdb-consistency: recognize the common topology view OSPF routers need within an area. case-112 remains protocol-specific.

 

Question 9

Two OSPF links currently have equal cost because the configured reference bandwidth is too low to distinguish their high interface speeds. What change best restores meaningful cost differentiation? Choose ONE.

1. lower the OSPF reference bandwidth on only one router
2. increase EIGRP variance
3. convert the area to NSSA
4. raise the OSPF reference bandwidth consistently on all routers

Correct Answer(s)

 

D

Rationale

1. lower the OSPF reference bandwidth on only one router does not fit. A lower reference makes high-speed cost collapse worse, and changing it on one router introduces inconsistent metric calculations. case-113 tests ospf-highspeed-cost-resolution: select a metric-design change that prevents several fast links from collapsing to the same minimum OSPF cost. case-113 remains protocol-specific.
2. increase EIGRP variance does not fit. Variance is an EIGRP path-installation feature and cannot alter OSPF interface cost granularity. case-114 tests ospf-highspeed-cost-resolution: select a metric-design change that prevents several fast links from collapsing to the same minimum OSPF cost. case-114 remains protocol-specific.
3. convert the area to NSSA does not fit. NSSA changes external-LSA behavior for an area; it does not change how interface bandwidth maps to OSPF cost. case-115 tests ospf-highspeed-cost-resolution: select a metric-design change that prevents several fast links from collapsing to the same minimum OSPF cost. case-115 remains protocol-specific.
4. raise the OSPF reference bandwidth consistently on all routers is correct. Increasing the OSPF reference bandwidth allows faster interfaces to receive distinct calculated costs instead of all reaching the minimum cost value. The reference should be changed consistently across the routing domain to preserve coherent metrics. case-116 tests ospf-highspeed-cost-resolution: select a metric-design change that prevents several fast links from collapsing to the same minimum OSPF cost.

 

Question 10

An OSPF path to a destination crosses interfaces whose outbound costs are 4, 8, 12, and 6. What total path cost should SPF compare with alternatives? Choose ONE.

1. 12
2. 30
3. 8
4. 6

Correct Answer(s)

 

B

Rationale

1. 12 does not fit. Twelve is only the largest single interface cost; OSPF does not replace the path sum with the maximum link value. case-117 tests ospf-metric-arithmetic: calculate a cumulative OSPF metric in a four-link path. case-117 remains protocol-specific.
2. 30 is correct. OSPF adds the relevant interface costs along a path. Summing 4 + 8 + 12 + 6 produces a total cost of 30, which SPF uses when comparing this route with other candidates of the same class. case-118 tests ospf-metric-arithmetic: calculate a cumulative OSPF metric in a four-link path. case-118 remains protocol-specific.
3. 8 does not fit. Eight is one component of the route, not the cumulative metric used by SPF for the entire path. case-119 tests ospf-metric-arithmetic: calculate a cumulative OSPF metric in a four-link path. case-119 remains protocol-specific.
4. 6 does not fit. Six reflects only the final listed link and omits the preceding interface costs that contribute to the shortest-path metric. case-120 tests ospf-metric-arithmetic: calculate a cumulative OSPF metric in a four-link path. case-120 remains protocol-specific.

 

Question 11

A nonbackbone OSPF area has become disconnected from Area 0 because of a transitional topology constraint, but an adjacent area can provide a logical path to the backbone. Which OSPF concept is designed to restore backbone continuity in such a case? Choose ONE.

1. a virtual link
2. EIGRP variance
3. an OSPF Type 7 LSA
4. a designated-router election

Correct Answer(s)

 

A

Rationale

1. a virtual link is correct. An OSPF virtual link can provide a logical backbone connection through a transit area when a direct Area 0 attachment is temporarily unavailable. It preserves the hierarchical requirement that nonbackbone areas connect to the backbone. case-121 tests ospf-backbone-continuity: identify the OSPF mechanism used to logically connect a detached area boundary to Area 0. case-121 remains protocol-specific.
2. EIGRP variance does not fit. Variance changes EIGRP unequal-cost path eligibility and cannot repair OSPF backbone topology. case-122 tests ospf-backbone-continuity: identify the OSPF mechanism used to logically connect a detached area boundary to Area 0. case-122 remains protocol-specific.
3. an OSPF Type 7 LSA does not fit. Type 7 is an NSSA external advertisement and does not create a logical Area 0 connection. case-123 tests ospf-backbone-continuity: identify the OSPF mechanism used to logically connect a detached area boundary to Area 0. case-123 remains protocol-specific.
4. a designated-router election does not fit. DR election optimizes adjacency behavior on multiaccess segments but does not join a detached area boundary to the backbone. case-124 tests ospf-backbone-continuity: identify the OSPF mechanism used to logically connect a detached area boundary to Area 0. case-124 remains protocol-specific.

 

Question 12

A branch OSPF area should receive only a default summary from its ABR instead of normal inter-area summaries and external LSAs. Which area behavior best matches the requirement? Choose ONE.

1. normal area
2. NSSA with full summaries
3. totally stub area
4. Area 0 as a transit backbone

Correct Answer(s)

 

C

Rationale

1. normal area does not fit. A normal area permits the summary and external LSAs that the design explicitly wants to suppress. case-125 tests ospf-totally-stub-area: choose the area type that suppresses Type 3 summaries except default as well as external Type 4/5 information. case-125 remains protocol-specific.
2. NSSA with full summaries does not fit. A standard NSSA is intended to allow local external-route injection and can still receive inter-area summaries, so it does not match the requested minimal view. case-126 tests ospf-totally-stub-area: choose the area type that suppresses Type 3 summaries except default as well as external Type 4/5 information. case-126 remains protocol-specific.
3. totally stub area is correct. A totally stub area suppresses ordinary Type 3 inter-area summaries along with Type 4 and Type 5 external information, while the ABR supplies a default summary route. This minimizes LSDB and routing information inside the branch. case-127 tests ospf-totally-stub-area: choose the area type that suppresses Type 3 summaries except default as well as external Type 4/5 information. case-127 remains protocol-specific.
4. Area 0 as a transit backbone does not fit. The backbone carries broad inter-area information and is not used as a mechanism to give a branch only one default summary. case-128 tests ospf-totally-stub-area: choose the area type that suppresses Type 3 summaries except default as well as external Type 4/5 information. case-128 remains protocol-specific.

 

Question 13

A remote site must keep stub-like protection from ordinary Type 5 external LSAs, yet a local router inside the site must redistribute one external routing domain into OSPF. Which area type fits? Choose ONE.

1. NSSA
2. stub area
3. totally stub area with no external injection
4. normal area solely to permit Type 5 flooding

Correct Answer(s)

 

A

Rationale

1. NSSA is correct. An NSSA preserves the restriction against Type 5 external LSAs entering the area while allowing a local ASBR to originate external information as Type 7 LSAs. The ABR can translate eligible Type 7 advertisements for the rest of OSPF. case-129 tests ospf-nssa-selection: select an area type that combines stub characteristics with local external-route origination. case-129 remains protocol-specific.
2. stub area does not fit. A conventional stub area does not permit an ASBR inside it to inject redistributed external routes in the required manner. case-130 tests ospf-nssa-selection: select an area type that combines stub characteristics with local external-route origination. case-130 remains protocol-specific.
3. totally stub area with no external injection does not fit. This is even more restrictive and still fails the requirement for local external-route origination. case-131 tests ospf-nssa-selection: select an area type that combines stub characteristics with local external-route origination. case-131 remains protocol-specific.
4. normal area solely to permit Type 5 flooding does not fit. A normal area would allow external flooding but gives up the stub-like behavior the design explicitly wants to retain. case-132 tests ospf-nssa-selection: select an area type that combines stub characteristics with local external-route origination. case-132 remains protocol-specific.

 

Question 14

An NSSA ASBR originates an external prefix as a Type 7 LSA. The prefix must become reachable in normal OSPF areas. Which device performs the needed LSA translation? Choose ONE.

1. the originating ASBR only, with no ABR involvement
2. the OSPF Designated Router on every LAN
3. an EIGRP successor
4. an NSSA Area Border Router

Correct Answer(s)

 

D

Rationale

1. the originating ASBR only, with no ABR involvement does not fit. The NSSA ASBR creates Type 7 advertisements; translation to Type 5 for other areas is an ABR function. case-133 tests ospf-type7-translation: identify the OSPF boundary device that converts NSSA external information for normal-area flooding. case-133 remains protocol-specific.
2. the OSPF Designated Router on every LAN does not fit. DRs manage adjacency and LSA exchange on multiaccess networks but do not perform NSSA Type 7-to-Type 5 translation as their role. case-134 tests ospf-type7-translation: identify the OSPF boundary device that converts NSSA external information for normal-area flooding. case-134 remains protocol-specific.
3. an EIGRP successor does not fit. An EIGRP successor is a best-path concept from another protocol and has no part in OSPF LSA translation. case-135 tests ospf-type7-translation: identify the OSPF boundary device that converts NSSA external information for normal-area flooding. case-135 remains protocol-specific.
4. an NSSA Area Border Router is correct. An NSSA ABR translates eligible Type 7 LSAs into Type 5 AS-external LSAs so the redistributed prefix can propagate beyond the NSSA into the broader OSPF domain. case-136 tests ospf-type7-translation: identify the OSPF boundary device that converts NSSA external information for normal-area flooding. case-136 remains protocol-specific.

 

Question 15

A redistributed route should prefer an exit that is closer inside the OSPF domain, not merely one with the lowest identical external metric. Which external metric type is the better fit? Choose ONE.

1. E2
2. N2 solely because it ignores internal distance
3. E1
4. an intra-area O route created without redistribution

Correct Answer(s)

 

C

Rationale

1. E2 does not fit. E2 primarily preserves the external metric and does not normally make accumulated internal path cost the main differentiator requested here. case-137 tests ospf-e1-use-case: choose the external metric type that incorporates internal distance to the exit point. case-137 remains protocol-specific.
2. N2 solely because it ignores internal distance does not fit. N2 is an NSSA external Type 2 form and similarly emphasizes the external metric rather than satisfying the stated need to account for internal distance. case-138 tests ospf-e1-use-case: choose the external metric type that incorporates internal distance to the exit point. case-138 remains protocol-specific.
3. E1 is correct. E1 is appropriate when internal OSPF distance to the ASBR should influence the total external route metric. Its calculation adds that internal cost to the external metric, allowing nearer exits to become preferable. case-139 tests ospf-e1-use-case: choose the external metric type that incorporates internal distance to the exit point. case-139 remains protocol-specific.
4. an intra-area O route created without redistribution does not fit. A redistributed external prefix cannot simply be reclassified as an intra-area route to achieve the desired external-metric behavior. case-140 tests ospf-e1-use-case: choose the external metric type that incorporates internal distance to the exit point. case-140 remains protocol-specific.

 

Question 16

A router has valid OSPF paths of three classes to the same prefix: intra-area, inter-area, and external. Which class is evaluated with the highest preference among those choices? Choose ONE.

1. inter-area
2. intra-area
3. external
4. the class with the largest numeric metric regardless of type

Correct Answer(s)

 

B

Rationale

1. inter-area does not fit. Inter-area paths are considered after valid intra-area paths to the same destination. case-141 tests ospf-class-ordering: apply OSPF route-class preference before comparing lower-priority external alternatives. case-141 requires apply OSPF route-class preference before comparing lower-priority external alternatives. case-141 remains protocol-specific.
2. intra-area is correct. OSPF prefers intra-area reachability over inter-area reachability, and both internal classes are preferred over external routes for the same destination. The intra-area candidate therefore has the highest route-type preference among the listed choices. case-142 tests ospf-class-ordering: apply OSPF route-class preference before comparing lower-priority external alternatives. case-142 remains protocol-specific.
3. external does not fit. External reachability is lower in the OSPF route-type hierarchy than internal intra-area and inter-area routes. case-143 tests ospf-class-ordering: apply OSPF route-class preference before comparing lower-priority external alternatives. case-143 remains protocol-specific.
4. the class with the largest numeric metric regardless of type does not fit. OSPF does not ignore route class and simply choose the numerically largest metric; lower metric is better within the applicable comparison context. case-144 tests ospf-class-ordering: apply OSPF route-class preference before comparing lower-priority external alternatives. case-144 remains protocol-specific.

 

Question 17

In EIGRP terminology, what does a neighbor’s reported distance represent? Choose ONE.

1. the neighbor’s own metric from itself to the destination
2. the local router’s total metric through that neighbor
3. the OSPF cost from Area 0 to the destination
4. the hop count of the successor only

Correct Answer(s)

 

A

Rationale

1. the neighbor’s own metric from itself to the destination is correct. Reported distance is the metric a neighbor advertises for its own path to the destination. The local router combines that information with the cost to reach the neighbor when evaluating its own feasible distance and alternate paths. case-145 tests eigrp-reported-distance: distinguish a neighbor-advertised distance from the local total path metric. case-145 remains protocol-specific.
2. the local router’s total metric through that neighbor does not fit. That describes the local composite distance via the neighbor, not the metric the neighbor itself reports toward the destination. case-146 tests eigrp-reported-distance: distinguish a neighbor-advertised distance from the local total path metric. case-146 remains protocol-specific.
3. the OSPF cost from Area 0 to the destination does not fit. Reported distance is EIGRP terminology and is not an OSPF backbone cost field. case-147 tests eigrp-reported-distance: distinguish a neighbor-advertised distance from the local total path metric. case-147 remains protocol-specific.
4. the hop count of the successor only does not fit. EIGRP’s reported distance is a composite metric value, not simply the successor’s hop count. case-148 tests eigrp-reported-distance: distinguish a neighbor-advertised distance from the local total path metric. case-148 remains protocol-specific.

 

Question 18

In EIGRP terminology, what is the feasible distance for the current best route? Choose ONE.

1. the neighbor’s advertised metric before local cost is added
2. the local router’s best calculated metric to the destination
3. the maximum metric allowed by variance
4. the number of outstanding DUAL replies

Correct Answer(s)

 

B

Rationale

1. the neighbor’s advertised metric before local cost is added does not fit. That value is reported distance, which is distinct from the local router’s feasible distance through its best path. case-149 tests eigrp-feasible-distance: identify the local best distance value used by DUAL and the feasibility test. case-149 remains protocol-specific.
2. the local router’s best calculated metric to the destination is correct. Feasible distance is the local router’s lowest known composite metric to the destination through the current successor. DUAL uses that value as the comparison point when testing whether a neighbor’s reported distance can qualify an alternate as loop free. case-150 tests eigrp-feasible-distance: identify the local best distance value used by DUAL and the feasibility test.
3. the maximum metric allowed by variance does not fit. The variance ceiling is derived from the best metric and configured multiplier; it is not the definition of feasible distance. case-151 tests eigrp-feasible-distance: identify the local best distance value used by DUAL and the feasibility test. case-151 remains protocol-specific.
4. the number of outstanding DUAL replies does not fit. Query reply count is operational state information and does not represent the metric value called feasible distance. case-152 tests eigrp-feasible-distance: identify the local best distance value used by DUAL and the feasibility test. case-152 remains protocol-specific.

 

Question 19

A large enterprise wants to limit how much topology information and recomputation is contained within routing domains. Which comparison is accurate? Choose ONE.

1. EIGRP uses OSPF Area 0 and OSPF uses EIGRP variance for scaling
2. both protocols rely only on hop-count limits for control-plane scaling
3. OSPF uses areas to scope link-state information, while EIGRP can use stub/query boundaries to constrain DUAL queries
4. OSPF feasible successors and EIGRP Type 7 LSAs provide the same function

Correct Answer(s)

 

C

Rationale

1. EIGRP uses OSPF Area 0 and OSPF uses EIGRP variance for scaling does not fit. This swaps unrelated mechanisms: EIGRP has no OSPF area hierarchy, and OSPF does not use variance. case-153 tests igp-scaling-comparison: compare how OSPF hierarchy and EIGRP query controls bound control-plane work. case-153 remains protocol-specific.
2. both protocols rely only on hop-count limits for control-plane scaling does not fit. Neither protocol’s principal enterprise scaling model is simply a hop-count boundary; their control planes use richer topology and hierarchy mechanisms. case-154 tests igp-scaling-comparison: compare how OSPF hierarchy and EIGRP query controls bound control-plane work. case-154 remains protocol-specific.
3. OSPF uses areas to scope link-state information, while EIGRP can use stub/query boundaries to constrain DUAL queries is correct. OSPF’s hierarchical area design limits much link-state flooding and SPF scope to an area. EIGRP does not use OSPF areas; instead, designs can reduce diffusing-query reach with mechanisms such as stub routers and careful topology boundaries. case-155 tests igp-scaling-comparison: compare how OSPF hierarchy and EIGRP query controls bound control-plane work.
4. OSPF feasible successors and EIGRP Type 7 LSAs provide the same function does not fit. Feasible successors are EIGRP loop-free backups, while Type 7 LSAs carry NSSA external information in OSPF; their purposes are unrelated. case-156 tests igp-scaling-comparison: compare how OSPF hierarchy and EIGRP query controls bound control-plane work. case-156 remains protocol-specific.

 

Question 20

A network team wants deterministic equal-cost forwarding using OSPF. Which condition must competing paths to the same destination satisfy to be installed as equal-cost multipaths? Choose ONE.

1. they may have any cost if variance is greater than 1
2. one path must be a feasible successor
3. the path with the larger cost is always added for redundancy
4. they must have the same relevant OSPF path cost and route type

Correct Answer(s)

 

D

Rationale

1. they may have any cost if variance is greater than 1 does not fit. Variance belongs to EIGRP; configuring it is not an OSPF mechanism for unequal-cost multipath. case-157 tests ospf-ecmp-eligibility: identify the metric condition for OSPF equal-cost multipath installation. case-157 remains protocol-specific.
2. one path must be a feasible successor does not fit. Feasible successor is a DUAL concept from EIGRP and is not an OSPF ECMP requirement. case-158 tests ospf-ecmp-eligibility: identify the metric condition for OSPF equal-cost multipath installation. case-158 remains protocol-specific.
3. the path with the larger cost is always added for redundancy does not fit. OSPF does not automatically install a higher-cost route alongside the best equal-class path merely for redundancy. case-159 tests ospf-ecmp-eligibility: identify the metric condition for OSPF equal-cost multipath installation. case-159 remains protocol-specific.
4. they must have the same relevant OSPF path cost and route type is correct. OSPF can install multiple next hops when candidate routes are comparable and have equal cost. It does not use EIGRP variance to admit unequal metrics, so matching OSPF cost is central to ECMP eligibility. case-160 tests ospf-ecmp-eligibility: identify the metric condition for OSPF equal-cost multipath installation. case-160 remains protocol-specific.

• < Cisco CCNP 350-401 ENCOR EIGRP and OSPF Concepts, Metrics, Areas, and Path Operations Practice Test 1
• Cisco CCNP 350-401 ENCOR OSPFv2/v3 Configuration, Adjacency, Summarization, Filtering, and Network Types Practice Test 1 >