Refer to the exhibit. Router 1 and router 2 are running OSPF Area 0. The router logs on both routers show that the LDP link has flapped. Which configuration must the engineer apply to the two routers to implement session protection on the link?
A.
Router 1(config)# ip cef distributed Router 1(config)# mpls ldp session protection global Router 2(config)# ip cef distributed Router 2(config)# mpls ldp session protection global
B.
Router 1(config)# ip cef distributed Router 1(config)# interface gigabitethernet 0/0 Router 1(config-if)# ip address 192.168.1.1 255.255.255.0 Router 1(config)# mpls ldp session protection Router 2(config)# interface gigabitethernet 0/0 Router 2(config-if)# ip address 192.168.1.2 255.255.255.0 Router 2(config)# mpls ldp session protection
By process of elimination, I labbed the commands.
A: global keyword is not part of the command, mpls ldp session protection
B: mpls ldp session proteccion command can't be entered in the interface configuration
C: easiest elimination, bad subnet masks
D: Correct answer
A not ok because global keyword does not exist
C not ok because the subnet masks are wrong
B Looks almost ok, but exit from the interfaces is missing
D. Looks ok
Can we configure "mpls label protocol ldp" on an interface, The answer is yes; it is possible to configure under the interface or global configuration mode.
Honestly such a dumb question... how can you have 2 answers to close to each other..
I mean both B and D will get the job done. I guess D is more complete.
The correct answer is B. The ldp command is running in global configuration mode. In answer D, it shows the ldp protocol command within the interface. This command is done in global mode to enable ldp as preferable to tdp.
But the IP address was also there before so why put that again and in B the ip cef distributed is MISSING on R2 where it is needed.
D is correct configuration
Answer is D
The mpls ldp session protection is entered from the global config mode so you have to exit from the interface mode. This is how Cisco have documented it:
https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/ios-xml/ios/mp_ldp/configuration/15-s/mp-ldp-15-s-book/mp-ldp-sessn-prot.html
The answer is B. The mpls ldp session protection command was not applied to the interface, it was applied in global config mode. Te questions says LDP flapped meaning LDP was previously configured so why should we enable MPLS again on the interfaces?
For me the answer should be B.
The better is D
A is wrong, coz there's no "global" in the "mpls ldp session protection" command.
https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/ios-xml/ios/mp_ldp/configuration/xe-16-5/mp-ldp-xe-16-5-book/mp-ldp-sessn-prot.html
Correct, the global keyword it not in that command so A is discarded, D is the better answer.
upvoted 1 times
...
...
This section is not available anymore. Please use the main Exam Page.350-501 Exam Questions
Log in to ExamTopics
Sign in:
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.
EdgardoAC
Highly Voted 3 years, 4 months agochst
2 years, 1 month agothejag
1 year, 11 months agothejag
1 year, 10 months agorans3001
Most Recent 10 months, 1 week agosushil_bhattacharjee
1 year, 2 months agoMartiian
1 year, 4 months agoHARDCCNP
1 year, 7 months agoSeele
1 year, 9 months agoTotalstranger
2 years agothejag
1 year, 11 months agothejag
2 years, 3 months agojmbp12
3 years, 2 months agoKING_II
3 years, 5 months agoNetworkYoda72
2 years, 7 months agoCprest
3 years, 5 months agojefranca
3 years, 6 months agoEdgardoAC
3 years, 4 months ago