Refer to the Exhibit.
Customer A is complaining that routes advertised from the CE2 router are not being received on
the CE1 router. The physical topology of the network is CE1-PE1-PE2-CE2. The CE1-PE1 subnet
is 172.16.1.0/24. The CE2-PE2 subnet is 172.16.2.0/24. PE1’s loopback is 192.168.3.1 and PE2’s
loopback is 192.168.4.1.Referring to the output in the exhibit, what is the problem?
A.
No LSP exists between PE1 and PE2.
B.
Route targets are not properly configured.
C.
as-override is not configured in the VRFs.
D.
family inet-vpn is not configured on the PEs.
Explanation:
Why not answer D?
0
0
should be D
0
0
Could be both, either B or D, for both cases the outputs are the same.
0
0
if “family inet-vpn is not configured on the PEs” the first output should not show anything and is showing that is exporting inet-vpn routes, so this option is wrong.
1
0
I agree. PE1 PE2 has negotiated inet-vpn unicast family on BGP setup and hence PE2 is sending routes in the output above. D is not the answer.
0
0
I guess that isn’t D because we have 2 destination in customer-vpn.inet.0, so family inet-vpn is configured.
0
0
One LSP exists – table inet.3, A is wrong
AS override – this question isn’t about AS override – B is wrong
Family inet-vpn was configured, D is wrong
1
0