Exam 300-410 topic 1 question 491 discussion

variance 2 is already in place. we need to meet the feasibility condition first.

It is C. The reported distance of feasible successor is NOT LOWER than our successor. If we lower the delay by just enough to lower the reported distance and metric we do not need to worry about variance. I don't see where it says variance is 2. There is no variance shown in the output. If we changed variance to 100000 it wouldn't make a difference because reported distance of feasible successor is equal to our metric which doesn't guarantee a loop free path.

C is correct

Option C: Changing the EIGRP delay metric is not necessary. The metrics are already within range for load balancing.

The RD of s2/0 is 409600. it needs to be 409599 to be lower thean the FD of the best route. So we need change a metric. The easiest, and usually recommended is to change delay and not bandwidth. Also delay is differenct in the output.

With the variance to 2, the RT should already load balance between the two routes... The feasibility condition doesn't talk about the delay only the FD-AD.... Probably something wrong with the question.

It is C for me

From the output of the “show ip eigrp topology …” command, we notice network 172.16.100.5/32 was learned via two routes: + From 10.4.1.5 with FD = 409600 and AD = 128256 + From 10.3.1.6 with FD = 435200 and AD = 409600 To use both paths (called unequal cost load balancing) with EIGRP, the second path must satisfy the feasibility condition. The feasibility condition states that, the Advertised Distance (AD) of a route must be lower than the feasible distance of the current successor route. In this case, the second path did not satisfy the feasible condition as its AD (409600) is equal to the FD of the best path -> Therefore we cannot configure load balancing with “variance” command.

It looks to me that variance = 3 would do the trick as well.