Refer to the exhibit. The primary link between R1 and R2 went down, but R3 is still advertising the 192.168.200.0/24 network to R1 and the 192.168.100.0/24 network to R2, which creates a loop. Which action resolves the issue?
Refer to the exhibit. The primary link between R1 and R2 went down, but R3 is still advertising the 192.168.200.0/24 network to R1 and the 192.168.100.0/24 network to R2, which creates a loop. Which action resolves the issue?
When dealing with routing loops in EIGRP (Enhanced Interior Gateway Routing Protocol), one effective strategy is to limit the routes that a router can advertise to its neighbors. In this case, configuring the EIGRP stub command on R3 prevents it from advertising routes learned from one neighbor to other neighbors, effectively stopping it from being an intermediary and forming a loop. This command tells the router to only advertise connected and summary routes, ensuring that R3 does not propagate routes between R1 and R2. Therefore, configuring the eigrp stub command under the EIGRP process on R3 resolves the issue.
Note this question would be better stated like: The it person tried to configure this router. He does not now what he did and somebody needs to fix this before a full redesign of the network is required (because he is fired and needs to take his career to some other company). What a stupid question.
Not sure where the loop is but to stop R3 being sued for transitive routing between R1+2 making it an EIGRP stub works.
I also agree here, why would there be any loop. It is normal behavior that a router advertise routes to others, a loop can occur when redistribution is done wrong. However, by default this should not happen. If they do not want redundancy (where routing is actually providing), you can disable this by some stupid config change.