In the exhibit, network 172.16.0.0/16 is redistributed into IS-IS in Area 49.0002. R1 must use R2 to access 172.16.0.0/16. All other traffic leaving Area 49.0001 must use R4.Which three steps will accomplish this task? (Choose three.)
A.
Configure R1 to ignore the attached bit.
B.
Disable the attached bit on R4 in Area 49.0001.
C.
Enable an L2 adjacency on the link between R1 and R2.
D.
Leak network 172.16.0.0/16 into L1 on R2.
E.
Redistribute a static default route into L1 on R4.
The correct is A), C) y D)
0
0
I think the correct answer should be A, D, E.
0
0
Correct answer’s are A,C,D
0
0
I also think it should be A,D and E. If “E” is not considered then how the traffic will go through R4 (except 172.16/16 block).
So E must be there. And D is also required as we already discarded C, so 172.16/16 network must b there via R2.
0
0
fixed . A,C,D
0
0
Hi all, R1-R2 adjacency should be L2 between non identical areas so the entire question is wrong.
0
0
Totally agree. Same for R1-R4 adjacency. The entire question is wrong.
0
0
Must be A D E
0
0
My Vote goes to
A.
D.
E.
You can’t consider C. it is against the shown topology.
0
0
Still have some doubts. What if R4 and R2 interfaces towards R1 are also configured on L1 in the are 49.0001? This is not clear drawing shows that it is area 49.0002 so answers A, D, E.
I feel much more comfortable with answer E , however C is also possible depends on interpretation .
0
0
The assumption here is you don’t break the level 1 and level 2 setups.
With that, leak the more specific xternal route of 172 down from R2 to R1, and redistribute a 0/0 down from R4 to R1.
That is the path i would take to avoid changing any L1/L2 area boundaries.
0
0
Correct answer is A,D,E
Choosing C would eliminate A and E, since R1 would have the full L2 routing table and it would not satisfy the requirement for all other traffic to leave via R4.
0
0
I have the same concern as Max. There are 2-4 questions like this on the test that have L1 connections between different areas which is a violation of ISIS protocol and should prevent the links from coming up. Can anyone explain how this could be valid?
0
0
The answer is A,D and E. First ignore the Attach bit (default route) so you can determine where you want default traffic to go. Second, only leak that prefix (172.16.0.0/16) over the R1 R2 connection so area 49.0001 only knows to go that way for that prefix. Lastly, you would set a default route so that “all” other traffic leaving the area goes over R1 R4. It is implied that the connection between area 49.0001 and 49.0002 is a L2 connection, otherwise the adj wouldn’t come up and the attached bit is only set in that scenario (Adj between different areas)
0
0