Refer to the exhibit.
When the FastEthernet0/1 goes down, the route to 172.29.0.0/16 via 192.168.253.2 is not installed in the RIB. Which action resolves the issue?
300-410 Exam QuestionsBrowse all questions from this exam
300-410 Exam - Question 66
Show AnswerHide Answer
Correct Answer: A
In Enhanced Interior Gateway Routing Protocol (EIGRP), the feasibility condition specifies that for a route to be considered as a feasible successor (a backup route), the reported distance (RD) of the feasible successor must be less than the feasible distance (FD) of the current successor. In this scenario, the RD of the feasible successor (352300) is greater than the FD of the current successor (307200). To resolve this issue and ensure that the route to 172.29.0.0/16 via 192.168.253.2 is installed in the RIB when FastEthernet0/1 goes down, the feasible distance needs to be configured greater than the reported distance of the feasible successor. Thus, configuring the feasible distance greater than the reported distance meets the feasibility condition, ensuring a loop-free backup path.
Discussion
17 commentsHungarianDishOption: A
Jun 6, 2023For 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"
MusteOption: A
Aug 23, 2023It should have been like this A : Configure feasible distance greater than the reported distance + of the feasible successor
davdtechOption: B
Jun 22, 2022Oh 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.
6dd4aa0Option: B
Apr 5, 2023In 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.
Dacusai
Apr 27, 2023That number is already greater than the reported distance, so no make sense, answer A is more accurate making the reported distance lower than the FD. P 10.4.4.0/24, 1 successors, FD is 3328 via 10.13.1.3 (3328/3072), GigabitEthernet0/1 via 10.14.1.4 (5376/2816), GigabitEthernet0/2 Path Metric Reported Distance Feasible Distance Feasible Successor Passes Feasibility Condition 2816<3328
JoeyT
May 23, 2023analyzation is correct, conclusion is wrong. bassically, you have to make 307200 bigger than 252300 or make 352300 smaller than 307200. In answers, no choice to make smaller, so you make 307200 FD bigger than 352300 RD, which is A, no doubt.
JoeyT
May 23, 2023typo, 352300. .... the other two numbers are NOT related.
MalasxdOption: A
May 21, 2023"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
MicMillonOption: A
Jul 3, 2023A is correct
DefiletOption: A
May 3, 2024We 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
timtghOption: C
May 29, 2022I 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.
JOKERROption: B
May 31, 2022The 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.
Koume
Jan 20, 2023Remember that the feability condition is "The router Reported distance should be less than the successor feasible distance. the only Feasible distance that you can change is the succesor FD to make the second route meet the criteria.
sajjad_gayyem
Jul 2, 2023By doing what you say, the successor link will become the preferred route.so i go with A.
sajjad_gayyemOption: A
Jul 2, 2023Only A can make change, however the answers are not precise.
Ll123123Option: A
Oct 30, 2023I 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.
PietjeplukgelukOption: A
Jun 24, 2024The 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)
Hack4Option: A
Feb 17, 2022A is correct
jester_2020
May 8, 2022The 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?
SnoopDDOption: B
Oct 24, 2023For 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
NicoFOption: A
Feb 16, 2024Tricky 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
SeMo0o0o0Option: A
Jul 17, 2024A is correct