Refer to the exhibit. A service provider engineer is configuring the connection between CE1 and CE2. AS 200 of the service provider and AS 100 of enterprise ABC should connect using BGP. The engineer already completed the configuration of VRF RT 100:10 of enterprise ABC. Which configuration must the engineer apply on PE1 to meet the requirement?
To establish a BGP connection between an enterprise VRF and the service provider network, the appropriate configuration needs to include VRF settings, a route distinguisher (RD) to distinguish between routes in different VRFs, and the correct address-family for VPNv4 unicast routing. Considering the provided configurations and requirements, Option D is correct because it configures the VRF with RD 100:1 and sets up the address-family for VPNv4, ensuring the VPN route redistribution. This setup aligns with what is needed to facilitate connection and proper routing for the specified VRF among the network devices.
Either way I will go for B. U do not need vpnv4 afi for neighborship U need ipv4 afi for neighborship Also need to define the RD for that specific route as it traverses the mpls core
But Karen is right VRF is missing from output on PE1 BGP neighborship to CE1 and loopback is misleading.. however the principles of MPLS should still be in place
Yeah I think B has the least wrong with it. A and D seem to be configuring vpnv4 with the customer, which is wrong. C looks to be configuring the ipv4 afi with the other PE, which is wrong.
In the exhibit, the bgp neighbor from PE1-CE1 is already configured. Hence, it doesn't require it again. However, there is no VRF configuration. Hence, it requires configuring the VRF. vrf has to be IPv4 address family, not the VPNv4
The engineer already completed the configuration of VRF RT 100:10 of enterprise ABC 104 / 5.000 Resultados de tradução Resultado da tradução If this VRF is already configured, how are you applying a vrf with a different name to client ABC?
In the exhibit, the bgp neighbor from PE1-CE1 is already configured. Hence, it doesn't require it again. However, there is no VRF configuration. Hence, it requires configuring the VRF. vrf has to be IPv4 address family, not the VPNv4
This question doesn't make any sense. PE1 and CE1 have the same loopback IP 10.10.10.1 If PE1 is configured with a neighbor statement to 10.10.10.1, it will not form a neighbor with CE1. Also, the neighbor config with CE1 needs to be under "router bgp 200 vrf vpnABC". Good luck if you see this question on your exam.
I do agree that the question is poorly designed. because the answer needs to specify vrf vpnABC. However, I don't think the duplicate 10.10.10.1 is a problem. CE1 address 10.10.10.1 is in the vrf vpnABC address space, which is allowed to overlap with the global address space. I hope I don't get this question on the exam. I agree that B has the least wrong with it, and the config needs a vrf Definition. Which Cisco platform requires that you specify an address family in the vrf? IOS doesnt. XR? XE? Answer B
And nevertheless, Answer A is wrong because being in the vrf vpnABC address space, it should not use address-family vpnv4, (should be address-family ipv4 unicast).. I still support answer B because the config needs a vrf definition (and agree with Karen1337 that it should be called vpnABC). So many errors in these questions.