For feasibility condition: RD of feasible successor (352300) < FD of successor (307200) 1) make RD of feasible successor smaller (no such answer) or 2) make FD of successor greater = answer "A"

It should have been like this A : Configure feasible distance greater than the reported distance + of the feasible successor

We have to achieve the feasibility condition in order to be able to have a feasible successor for the same path. OFC other parameters might needed (variance etc) but this is the first step. The Advertised Distance (AD) of the Feasible Successor (FS) must be lower than the Feasible Distance (FD) of the Successor. https://notes.networklessons.com/eigrp-feasibility-condition

A is correct

"A" makes more sense. If the RD in the answer is the feasible sucessor RD it is definily right. Feasible distance = the metric of the best route (sucessor route), so B is saying for you to increase it to a value greater than itself. If you increase it to a value greater than feasible sucessor RD it would work but "A" is saying for you to do this, so it fit more. In B you can just increase the feasible distance a little bit but not enough to be greater than RD. I don't know if I was clear, my english is not that good hahaha

In order to pass the feasibility condition, the feasible successor reported distance (352300) must be less than the feasibility distance (307200) in order to allow it as a backup route. In this case, it is not so. There are two ways in doing so: 1. Lower down the feasible successor reported distance below 307200. 2. Increase the feasibility distance above the feasible successor reported distance (352300) So, in answer B, it states to increase the feasibility distance to above the feasible successor FD (410200). As a result, it is above feasible successor reported distance (352300). This matches what I have explained in the second option.

Oh common, are we doing a cisco exam or a grammar exam? cisco shame on you.. So if it's answer B then it should say 'configure the FD to be greater than the feasible Suc Distance of the successor route.

The answer seems A, but should be written far more clearly: "Configure feasible distance of successor route(best route) greater than the reported distance of the feasible successor(backup route). Explanation: The backup route is only passing feasibility condition if: Feasible distance of a successor route(best route) is LESS than the advertised distance of the successor route (backup route)

I will go with A FD = RD + local calculated metric of best route So FD can not be configured, unless we twist the metric of successor route. And the back up reported distance must be smaller than the FD in order to be considered as backup path.

Only A can make change, however the answers are not precise.

The answers are tricky. I am going with B because: It says configure Feasible distance greater than successor's feasible distance. So in this case the make FD(307200) > 410200, which is greater than 352300 which would pass Feasibility condition would make the route install in the Routing table.

I have a theory. I believe there are two typos. First, the question should say "what is wrong?" and not "what action will fix it." Second, remove the word "configure" from the answers. Then one answer makes sense: C. The problem is the reported distance is greater than the successor's FD.

A is correct

Tricky answers since these all say 'greater than'. Feasible successor's (secondary route) RD must be less than successor's (primary route) FD, so definitely not B or C. So answer A FD > RD is the only suitable answer

For a route to be considered a backup route, the RD received for that route must be less than the FD calculated locally. This logic guarantees a loop-free path. FD is 307200 , RD is 352300

The question is confusing and kinda gramatically incorrect. According to Feasible Condition, the RD of Feasible Successor must be lower or less than the FD of successor. Based on the question, it's not clear which metric to change, the sucessor or the feasible successor?

A is correct