Refer to the exhibit.
EIGRP peering was lost.
Which configuration resolves the issue?
Exam 300-410 All QuestionsBrowse all questions from this exam
Question 477
Correct Answer: D
The issue indicated in the exhibit is an EIGRP neighbor relationship failure due to a K-value mismatch. EIGRP uses K-values to calculate the metric for paths through the network. For two routers to become neighbors, their K-values must match exactly. The proper configuration to resolve this issue is to ensure the K-values are set correctly on both routers. The correct format for metric weights should have the Type of Service (TOS) as the first parameter, which is typically set to 0, followed by the K-values (K1 through K5). The correct option that sets the metric weights properly according to this understanding is 'metric weights 0 1 1 1 0 0', which corresponds to option D.
Discussion
MusteOption: D
the default metric should be like this the first field is TOS and it's mostly 0 the second field is K1 it should be 1 and the 4th field is K3 and it should be 1 R1(config-router)#metric weights 0 1 0 1 0 0
Pietjeplukgeluk
Indeed "metric weights 0 1 0 1 0 0" is the default == THERE seem to be NO correct answer
ridonak230Option: D
Answer is "D" ... I agree that K values are 5 , but when using "metric weights" command, the FIRST value is the TOS (Type Of Service) byte but as you can see it only supports a value of 0. The next values are for the actual K values: R1(config)#router eigrp 88 R1(config-router)#metric weights ? <0-8> Type Of Service (Only TOS 0 supported). <<<<<<<< R1(config-router)#metric weights 0 ? <0-255> K1
robi1020Option: A
I think its A too. https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/ios-xml/ios/iproute_eigrp/configuration/15-s/ire-15-s-book/ire-wid-met.html