exam questions

Exam 300-410 All Questions

View all questions & answers for the 300-410 exam

Exam 300-410 topic 1 question 455 discussion

Actual exam question from Cisco's 300-410
Question #: 455
Topic #: 1
[All 300-410 Questions]



Refer to the exhibit. Two routers are connected back to back via Gigabit Ethernet 0/0 interfaces. Which configuration provides VRF-Lite connectivity for two separate VRFs using the prefixes 10.1.1.0/24 for one VRF and 10.2.2.0/24 for the other VRF?

  • A. ip vrf 1
    rd 65001:1
    ip vrf 2
    rd 65001:2
    !
    int GigabitEthernet0/0
    no shut
    !
    int GigabitEthernet0/0.1
    encapsulation dot1Q 1
    ip vrf forwarding
    ip address 10.1.1.1 255.255.255.0
    !
    int GigabitEthernet0/0.2
    encapsulation dot1Q 2
    ip vrf forwarding
    ip address 10.2.2.1 255.255.255.0
  • B. ip vrf 1
    rd 65001:1
    ip vrf 2
    rd 65001:1
    !
    int GigabitEthernet0/0
    no shut
    !
    int GigabitEthernet0/0.1
    encapsulation dot1Q 1
    ip vrf forwarding 1
    ip address 10.1.1.1 255.255.255.0
    !
    int GigabitEthernet0/0.2
    encapsulation dot1Q 2
    ip vrf forwarding 2
    ip address 10.2.2.1 255.255.255.0
  • C. ip vrf 1
    ip vrf 2
    int GigabitEthernet0/0
    no shut
    !
    int GigabitEthernet0/0.1
    encapsulation dot1Q 1
    ip vrf forwarding 1
    ip address 10.1.1.1 255.255.255.0
    !
    int GigabitEthernet0/0.2
    encapsulation dot1Q 2
    ip vrf forwarding 2
    ip address 10.2.2.1 255.255.255.0
  • D. ip vrf 1
    ip vrf 2
    !
    int GigabitEthernet0/0
    no shut
    !
    int GigabitEthernet0/0.1
    encapsulation dot1Q 1
    ip address 10.1.1.1 255.255.255.0
    ip vrf forwarding 1
    !
    int GigabitEthernet0/0.2
    encapsulation dot1Q 2
    ip address 10.2.2.1 255.255.255.0
    ip vrf forwarding 2
Show Suggested Answer Hide Answer
Suggested Answer: C 🗳️

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
inteldarvid
Highly Voted 1 year, 9 months ago
Selected Answer: C
yes option ""C"" correct, beacuse ir vrf lite without MP-BGP
upvoted 9 times
...
HungarianDish_111
Highly Voted 1 year, 11 months ago
Selected Answer: C
https://zartmann.dk/mpls-vpns-vs-vrf-lite/
upvoted 5 times
HungarianDish_111
1 year, 11 months ago
Some recent IOS requires the RD to be set also for VRF-Lite. It is only locally significant though. https://www.packetcoders.io/cisco-ios-how-to-configure-vrf-lite/
upvoted 4 times
...
...
christyronny7
Most Recent 1 month, 2 weeks ago
Selected Answer: C
Can't be B because you can't have the same RD for two different VRFs, RDs must be unique
upvoted 1 times
...
[Removed]
9 months, 2 weeks ago
Selected Answer: C
C is correct
upvoted 1 times
...
aqwsdfghjklp
1 year, 4 months ago
Why not B? rd should be mandatory.
upvoted 3 times
...
Brand
1 year, 8 months ago
Selected Answer: C
Just wanted to say that the option A is literally impossible as the router not going to you set "ip vrf forwarding" under an interface without defining the vrf itself. So it's IMPOSIBBLE to see such an output. Try and you'll see.
upvoted 3 times
...
guy276465281819372
1 year, 9 months ago
Selected Answer: C
C correct
upvoted 3 times
...
sajjad_gayyem
1 year, 10 months ago
Selected Answer: A
RD definition is preferred.
upvoted 1 times
inteldarvid
1 year, 9 months ago
you are wrong my friend, because. you need name vrf: ip vrf forwarding "1" or 2
upvoted 4 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