Refer to the exhibit. An engineer configures router A to mark all inside to outside traffic from network 192.168.1.0. except from host 192.168.1.1. with critical IP precedence. The policy did not work as expected. Which configuration resolves the issue?
The configuration requires an access list that denies the specific host 192.168.1.1 and permits any other traffic from 192.168.1.0/24. A route-map is needed to match this access list and set the IP precedence for the matched traffic. Since the unmatched traffic would naturally follow the normal routing table without needing additional route-map sequences, sequence 20 is not necessary. This makes the configuration in option D correct as it accurately denies the host in the access list, applies the policy to the interface, and does not include unnecessary configuration lines.
D is correct.Other hosts in 192.168.1.0/24 also need to be marked with critical IP precedence. Route-map CCNP permit 20 is not required, as the unmatched traffic will do the normal RIB lookup.
Agree its D
No need to add a route-map with sequence 20 as the "permit any any" will capture the rest of the traffic that needs to be marked critical.
I do not agree with D as that will not allow traffic with 192.168.1.1 to be routed. That will be blocked with an implicit deny at the end of the route map. Correct one is C
Correction, I agree with B or D being "almost correct" but they are both still WRONG. D will DROP traffic for 192.168.1.1 as the “route-map” has an implicit deny at the end. This is not what the question intended, it required “route-map CCNP permit 20” to be added to be OK. B is almost OK, but lacks a “access-list 1 permit any any” at the end of the ACL. Again, as far as i can see, there are no 100% OK answer. I Think B is best, but still it will not work as the acl is incomplete.
C has an incorrect deny in the first route-map entry, so is also wrong.