Refer to the exhibit.
A network engineer troubleshooting a packet drop problem for the host 172.16.100.5 notices that only one link is used and installed on the routing table, which saturates the bandwidth. Which action must the engineer take to resolve the high bandwidth utilization problem and share the traffic toward this host between the two available links?
The problem of high bandwidth utilization can be resolved by ensuring the feasibility condition is met so that EIGRP can use both available links for load balancing. The feasibility condition requires the advertised distance (AD) of a route to be lower than the feasible distance (FD) of the current successor route. Currently, the AD for the second route (409600) is not lower than the FD of the best route (409600). To meet this condition, it is necessary to change the EIGRP delay metric to make the FD of the best route higher than the second route's AD, thus meeting the feasibility condition. Setting the variance to 2 is sufficient once the feasibility condition is met. Therefore, changing the EIGRP delay metric is the correct approach.
variance 2 is already in place. we need to meet the feasibility condition first.
AD of FS (409600) is not lower than FD of the successor (409600)
It looks to me that variance = 3 would do the trick as well.
Option C: Changing the EIGRP delay metric is not necessary. The metrics are already within range for load balancing.
The RD of s2/0 is 409600. it needs to be 409599 to be lower thean the FD of the best route. So we need change a metric. The easiest, and usually recommended is to change delay and not bandwidth. Also delay is differenct in the output.
With the variance to 2, the RT should already load balance between the two routes... The feasibility condition doesn't talk about the delay only the FD-AD.... Probably something wrong with the question.
the feasible distance of the serial interface is the exact same thing as the reported distance of eth1/0. So changing variance wont matter, as it needs to be lower. if it is lower, eigrp knows the backup route wont point back to the current router, because - the feasible distance metric is lower. If it is the same feasible distance or higher, there is a chance the route points back to this router. So in the scenario above we changed delay metric to slightly lower the feasible distance in the serial interface.
think about it. If the FD metric is higher than the RD metric there is a chance the exact same routing path is encapsulated in a bigger routing path. If it is lower there is no chance of this happening, unless we really are modifying alot of the metrics on each individual router throughout the topology.
It is C for me
From the output of the “show ip eigrp topology …” command, we notice network 172.16.100.5/32 was learned via two routes: + From 10.4.1.5 with FD = 409600 and AD = 128256 + From 10.3.1.6 with FD = 435200 and AD = 409600 To use both paths (called unequal cost load balancing) with EIGRP, the second path must satisfy the feasibility condition. The feasibility condition states that, the Advertised Distance (AD) of a route must be lower than the feasible distance of the current successor route. In this case, the second path did not satisfy the feasible condition as its AD (409600) is equal to the FD of the best path -> Therefore we cannot configure load balancing with “variance” command.
The only reasonable solution of this question is “change the delay metric” so that the value of the FD of the best path is higher than its current value to meet the feasibility condition. Suppose after changing the delay metric, the second path now met feasibility condition. Let’s check if the second path would be installed into the routing table: The EIGRP will install all paths with metric < variance * best_metric into the local routing table. Therefore we can calculate the variance > metric / best_metric = 435200 / 409600 =1.06 -> A variance of 2 is enough to make EIGRP install the second path to its routing table.