Refer to the exhibit. An engineer has configured R1 as EIGRP stub router. After the configuration, router R3 failed to reach to R2 loopback address.
Which action advertises R2 loopback back into the R3 routing table?
Refer to the exhibit. An engineer has configured R1 as EIGRP stub router. After the configuration, router R3 failed to reach to R2 loopback address.
Which action advertises R2 loopback back into the R3 routing table?
The correct action to advertise R2's loopback back into the R3 routing table involves adding a static route for R2's loopback address in R1 and redistributing it to advertise to R3. This process ensures that R1, configured as an EIGRP stub, contains the necessary route information, which it can then pass on to R3. The commands required for this configuration include 'redistribute static' and 'eigrp stub static' to facilitate proper route advertisement in a stub scenario.
For me "A" is correct. I labbed it in CML. "B" is incorrect, because there is no such distribute-list (as others pointed out). Pls, see some good explanations here: https://community.cisco.com/t5/routing/eigrp-eigrp-stub-connected-static-summary/td-p/2575321 https://learningnetwork.cisco.com/s/question/0D53i00000Kso40CAB/clarification-needed-on-eigrp-stub-static-option https://notes.networklessons.com/redistribute-static-route-into-eigrp-stub-router
Option B is correct: https://networklessons.com/cisco/ccie-routing-switching-written/eigrp-stub-leak-map
The example you supplied matches the question. So i agree it should be B. Also strange that we get this question on CCNP as it seems out of scope of the exam. By the way, love the example, so simple!
In the example you have supplied shows if we want to use leak-map we have the option: eigrp stub leak-map <leak map name> There is no such option as distribute-list regarding leak-map, but redistribute command works as HungarianDish labbed: Correct answer is A
That's not true, you do NOT use a distribute list for create a leak-map, in fact if you look the configuration there is configured a route-map that is matching the 3.3.3.3/32 prefix and then is going to apply the leak map in the eigrp stub command using also the leak map the distribute list in NOT used
As previously mentioned (for example by HungarianDish) there is no such possibilty eigrp leak-map with distribute list. I also labbed the configuration, and I agree with HungarianDish, that answer is "A". Even the wording is met.
There is no such option as distribute-list regarding leak-map, but redistribute command works as HungarianDish labbed: Correct answer is A
Think the question has being edited - answer is now C (verified in CML)
Please ignore - its obviously B
I don't know why but this questions seems like it's asking about leak-map feature of EIGRP stub configuration... I can't explain but I have this feeling maybe it's because there is no other question talking about leak-map. Therefor it's B to me.
the answer correct is "A"
because, need redisitribute static in R1, because R1 is router stub
A and B are correct, but both of them have terrible wording. A. If you configure a static route to 2.2.2.2, then that will remove that route from the EIGRP topology due to AD. So even if R1 was not a stub router, it would not advertise the route. On top of that, we not only have to redistribute static routes into EIGRP, we also need to configure the eigrp stub to advertise static, as follows: eigrp <AS#> redistribute static <---This alone does not redistribute the static route eigrp stub static <---This completes the static redistribute for a stub router B There is not distribute-list into eigrp stub command. But what I think cisco meant was to create a prefix-list for R2 Loopback, reference it into a route-map, and tie that to a leak-map in eigrp, as follows: ip prefix-list R2LOOP permit 2.2.2.2/32 ! route-map R2LOOP permit match ip address prefix-list R2LOOP ! router eigrp <AS#> eigrp stub leak-map R2LOOP So I think B is the best answer, as A is far too vague.
Using the "redistributed" parameter had the very same effect: Config on R1: ! router eigrp 1 network 1.1.1.1 0.0.0.0 network 192.168.12.0 network 192.168.13.0 redistribute static eigrp stub connected summary redistributed ip route 2.2.2.2 255.255.255.255 192.168.12.2 !
For me, definitely answer "A".
After applying the config, that is what you see on R3: r3#sh ip route eigrp | b Gateway Gateway of last resort is not set 1.0.0.0/32 is subnetted, 1 subnets D 1.1.1.1 [90/130816] via 192.168.13.1, 00:13:36, GigabitEthernet0/0 2.0.0.0/32 is subnetted, 1 subnets D EX 2.2.2.2 [170/3072] via 192.168.13.1, 00:12:49, GigabitEthernet0/0 D 192.168.12.0/24 [90/3072] via 192.168.13.1, 00:13:36, GigabitEthernet0/0 r3#
My config on R1: router eigrp 1 network 1.1.1.1 0.0.0.0 network 192.168.12.0 network 192.168.13.0 redistribute static eigrp stub connected static summary ip route 2.2.2.2 255.255.255.255 192.168.12.2 You need the static route on R1 to get the prefix 2.0.0.0/32 back into the eigrp table. Plus, you need to push out the static route with these two commands on R1: redistribute static eigrp stub static
*typo: prefix 2.2.2.2/32
B is correct
Answer is A. You need these 2 commands: redistribute static and eigrp stub static
Im going with A on this just because answer B mention distribute list, thats not correct. We should use a prefix list with a route map or something like that.
the only one that can be right is A, the answer B is using a distribute list instead of a route-map that's the bad thing about this. The point is that we need also to remember that when eigrp stub is enabled by default you can only advertise connected network and summary networks, if we want to redistribute static routes we need to add the command eigrp stub connected summary static
output command show ip protocols: EIGRP-IPv4 Protocol for AS(100) Metric weight K1=1, K2=0, K3=1, K4=0, K5=0 Soft SIA disabled NSF-aware route hold timer is 240 Router-ID: 192.168.34.2 Stub, connected, summary router eigrp 100 network 192.168.24.0 0.0.0.3 network 192.168.34.0 0.0.0.3 redistribute connected redistribute static eigrp stub connected static summary
this is the output afer the command mentioned: Metric weight K1=1, K2=0, K3=1, K4=0, K5=0 Soft SIA disabled NSF-aware route hold timer is 240 Router-ID: 192.168.34.2 Stub, connected, static, summary Topology : 0 (base) Active Timer: 3 min
Answer C. A & D both require "redistribute static" under EIGRP. B is wrong because the leak-map is applied to the stub command and not via a distribute list.
The answer "A" would work, but "B" makes so much more sense for me. https://networklessons.com/cisco/ccie-routing-switching-written/eigrp-stub-leak-map
Hi! There seems to be a problem with answer "B". As already pointed out in other comments, the "eigrp stub leak-map" is using a route-map, and not a distribute-list.