Exam 300-410 All Questions

View all questions & answers for the 300-410 exam

Exam 300-410 topic 1 question 426 discussion

Actual exam question from Cisco's 300-410

Question #: 426
Topic #: 1

Refer to the exhibit. An engineer must filter incoming EIGRP updates to allow only a set of specific prefixes. The distribute list is tested, and it filters out all routes except network 10.10.10.0/24. How should the engineer temporarily allow all prefixes to be learned by the router again without adjusting the existing access list?

A. A permit any statement should be added before completing the ACL with the required prefixes, and then the permit any statement can be removed.
B. A permit 20 statement should be added before completing the ACL with the required prefixes, and then the permit 20 statement can be removed.
C. A continue statement should be added within the permit 10 statement before completing the ACL with the required prefixes, and then the continue statement can be removed.
D. An extended access list must be used instead of a standard access list to accomplish the task.

Show Suggested Answer

Suggested Answer: B 🗳️

by GReddy2323 at Feb. 7, 2023, 5:46 a.m.

Comments

Submit Cancel

[Removed]

Highly Voted 1 year, 5 months ago

Selected Answer: B

Its B but the language in the question is misleading.

upvoted 6 times

Pietjeplukgeluk

1 year, 4 months ago

The question is indeed of low quality, and i agree, it should be B. But the answer could be more clear as "route-map" is not actually mentioned in the answer. B should be: "A permit 20 statement should be added to the route-map before completing the ACL with the required prefixes, and then the permit 20 statement can be removed from the route-map when done."

upvoted 2 times

bk989

10 months ago

I just reread this part: without adjusting the existing access list? I am wrong you are correct What a stupid question B doesn't even make sense then

upvoted 1 times

...

bk989

10 months ago

note we cant do a "required any" statement with permitted prefixes: permit any required_prefixes (wrong order) permit required_prefixes any (right order) Since it is asking for a permit any, which looks like permit any before the required_prefixes, this won't work. Either way B is more precise. Answer = B.

upvoted 1 times

...

BALAKE

Most Recent 3 months ago

Selected Answer: B

This is the dumbest shit...

upvoted 1 times

...

CiscoTerminator

4 months, 4 weeks ago

Selected Answer: B

I thot question said without adjusting the existing ACL, isn't adding an ACE adjusting the ACL?

upvoted 1 times

Sammy3637

4 months, 1 week ago

ya,kinda stupid , but what they mean is , add permit 20 to the 'route-map'

upvoted 1 times

...

Sammy3637

5 months, 1 week ago

Selected Answer: B

it's so stupid , dont change the acl but change the acl ....

upvoted 1 times

...

[Removed]

11 months, 1 week ago

Selected Answer: B

B is correct it must be done on the route map, not on the ACL

upvoted 3 times

bk989

10 months, 1 week ago

no. It is done on the ACL. We temporarily add the required prefixes in ACL sequence 20. Then remove them after testing is complete. If we do a permit 20 route map it permits ALL prefixes, not just the required prefixes.

upvoted 1 times

CiscoTerminator

4 months, 4 weeks ago

question said dont adjust the ACL mate..route-map entries can also be removed you know.

upvoted 1 times

...

[Removed]

1 year, 11 months ago

Selected Answer: B

Requirement: temporarily allow all routes without modifying the ACCESS-LIST D. is wrong, this specifies directly modifying access list A. is wrong, there is no such command as "permit any" on a route-map C. is wrong, the continue statement under route-map, as I understand it, means that it should continue to process the route-map entry for the next statement in it. B. is correct, we need to override the implicit deny at the end of a route-map list with a statement that permits all routes. This will allow the engineer to modify the ACL without causing a longer outage.

upvoted 4 times

Brand

1 year, 10 months ago

My friend, both A and B is talking about adding permit any to ACL.

upvoted 2 times

...

Gedson

1 year, 11 months ago

Selected Answer: A

When we first read the requirement "... without adjusting the existing access list", we think the best solution is to add the statement "route-map EIGRP permit 20" (without any "match" statement) at the end of the route-map but there is no such choice.

upvoted 4 times

...

HungarianDish_111

2 years, 1 month ago

Selected Answer: B

Tested the scenario in CML.

upvoted 2 times

...

HungarianDish_111

2 years, 1 month ago

It is about adding and removing this part of the route-map: route-map EIGRP permit 20

upvoted 3 times

HungarianDish_111

2 years, 1 month ago

"permit statement that when used without any match statements, means “match all” effectively permitting all other routes" http://notthenetwork.me/blog/2013/07/24/ccnp-route-study-eigrp-route-filtering/

upvoted 2 times

...

GReddy2323

2 years, 4 months ago

Can someone please explain? It says without adjusting the existing access list... how can it be B?

upvoted 1 times

Typovy

2 years, 3 months ago

This mean permit statement in routemap

upvoted 1 times

...