Refer to the exhibit. When the FastEthernet0/1 goes down, the route to 172.29.0.0/16 via 192.168.253.2 is not installed in the RIB. Which action resolves the issue?
A.
Configure feasible distance greater than the reported distance.
B.
Configure feasible distance greater than the successor's feasible distance.
C.
Configure reported distance greater than the successor's feasible distance.
D.
Configure reported distance greater than the feasible distance.
For feasibility condition:
RD of feasible successor (352300) < FD of successor (307200)
1) make RD of feasible successor smaller (no such answer)
or
2) make FD of successor greater = answer "A"
Answer is A
Successor = best route
feasible successor = 2nd best.
We technically need to configure feasible distance > than feasible successors Reported distance. However B C D dont work at all. If we assume in A, the reported distance is of the feasible succesor then A is best choice.
Another tricky question.
The answer seems A, but should be written far more clearly: "Configure feasible distance of successor route(best route) greater than the reported distance of the feasible successor(backup route).
Explanation: The backup route is only passing feasibility condition if: Feasible distance of a successor route(best route) is LESS than the advertised distance of the successor route (backup route)
We have to achieve the feasibility condition in order to be able to have a feasible successor for the same path. OFC other parameters might needed (variance etc) but this is the first step.
The Advertised Distance (AD) of the Feasible Successor (FS) must be lower than the Feasible Distance (FD) of the Successor.
https://notes.networklessons.com/eigrp-feasibility-condition
Tricky answers since these all say 'greater than'. Feasible successor's (secondary route) RD must be less than successor's (primary route) FD, so definitely not B or C. So answer A FD > RD is the only suitable answer
I will go with A
FD = RD + local calculated metric of best route
So FD can not be configured, unless we twist the metric of successor route. And the back up reported distance must be smaller than the FD in order to be considered as backup path.
For a route to be considered a backup route, the RD received for that route
must be less than the FD calculated locally. This logic guarantees a
loop-free path. FD is 307200 , RD is 352300
"A" makes more sense. If the RD in the answer is the feasible sucessor RD it is definily right.
Feasible distance = the metric of the best route (sucessor route), so B is saying for you to increase it to a value greater than itself. If you increase it to a value greater than feasible sucessor RD it would work but "A" is saying for you to do this, so it fit more. In B you can just increase the feasible distance a little bit but not enough to be greater than RD. I don't know if I was clear, my english is not that good hahaha
In order to pass the feasibility condition, the feasible successor reported distance (352300) must be less than the feasibility distance (307200) in order to allow it as a backup route. In this case, it is not so.
There are two ways in doing so:
1. Lower down the feasible successor reported distance below 307200.
2. Increase the feasibility distance above the feasible successor reported distance (352300)
So, in answer B, it states to increase the feasibility distance to above the feasible successor FD (410200). As a result, it is above feasible successor reported distance (352300). This matches what I have explained in the second option.
That number is already greater than the reported distance, so no make sense, answer A is more accurate making the reported distance lower than the FD.
P 10.4.4.0/24, 1 successors, FD is 3328
via 10.13.1.3 (3328/3072), GigabitEthernet0/1
via 10.14.1.4 (5376/2816), GigabitEthernet0/2
Path Metric Reported Distance
Feasible Distance
Feasible Successor
Passes Feasibility Condition
2816<3328
analyzation is correct, conclusion is wrong. bassically, you have to make 307200 bigger than 252300 or make 352300 smaller than 307200. In answers, no choice to make smaller, so you make 307200 FD bigger than 352300 RD, which is A, no doubt.
Oh common, are we doing a cisco exam or a grammar exam? cisco shame on you..
So if it's answer B then it should say 'configure the FD to be greater than the feasible Suc Distance of the successor route.
The answers are tricky. I am going with B because:
It says configure Feasible distance greater than successor's feasible distance. So in this case the make FD(307200) > 410200, which is greater than 352300 which would pass Feasibility condition would make the route install in the Routing table.
Remember that the feability condition is "The router Reported distance should be less than the successor feasible distance. the only Feasible distance that you can change is the succesor FD to make the second route meet the criteria.
I have a theory. I believe there are two typos.
First, the question should say "what is wrong?" and not "what action will fix it."
Second, remove the word "configure" from the answers.
Then one answer makes sense: C. The problem is the reported distance is greater than the successor's FD.
The question is confusing and kinda gramatically incorrect. According to Feasible Condition, the RD of Feasible Successor must be lower or less than the FD of successor. Based on the question, it's not clear which metric to change, the sucessor or the feasible successor?
This section is not available anymore. Please use the main Exam Page.300-410 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.
HungarianDish_111
Highly Voted 1 year, 11 months agobk989
8 months, 3 weeks ago[Removed]
Most Recent 9 months, 2 weeks agoPietjeplukgeluk
10 months, 1 week agoDefilet
12 months agoNicoF
1 year, 2 months agoLl123123
1 year, 6 months agoSnoopDD
1 year, 6 months agoMuste
1 year, 8 months agoMicMillon
1 year, 10 months agosajjad_gayyem
1 year, 10 months agoMalasxd
1 year, 11 months ago6dd4aa0
2 years agoDacusai
2 years agoJoeyT
1 year, 11 months agoJoeyT
1 year, 11 months agodavdtech
2 years, 10 months agoJOKERR
2 years, 11 months agosajjad_gayyem
1 year, 10 months agoKoume
2 years, 3 months agotimtgh
2 years, 11 months agojester_2020
2 years, 11 months agoHack4
3 years, 2 months ago