Refer to the exhibit. Router R2 VLAN 10 users cannot get dynamic IP addresses from R1. Which action resolves the issue?
Refer to the exhibit. Router R2 VLAN 10 users cannot get dynamic IP addresses from R1. Which action resolves the issue?
The issue is that the DHCP pool on R2 only contains two addresses: 192.168.0.1 and 192.168.0.2. However, the interface GigabitEthernet 0/2 on R2 is already using 192.168.0.1 statically. This leaves only one address available (192.168.0.2), which is not enough for the two users, resulting in an address pool exhaustion. Thus, the correct action to resolve this issue is to expand the address scope of VLAN 10 to provide a larger pool of addresses.
The question states " Which Action Resolves The Issue" B - is only identyficaton, we do not do any acton. D - we actally do something here "expanding address scope" - Which for me is correct D is the correct answer
Agree on this
There is something not mentioned yet. The R2 router interface G0/2 is using 192.168.0.1 statically. The DHCP pool has only 2 IPs: 192.168.0.1 and 192.168.0.2 . So, the scope has to be expanded, because 192.168.0.1 cannot be used, it will create a conflict.
"Which action RESOLVES the issue?" It must be D because only D resolved the issue. Just "identifying" a host with a duplicate address doesn't resolve anything.
B it is - IP Conflict- https://www.firewall.cx/cisco/cisco-switches/cisco-switch-router-dhcp-server-conflicts.html
Changing answer to B. Its a error related to duplicate addresses
It's a trap. Not D, because we have 192.168.0.1 - 192.168.0.2 to assign and only two users. So ip-helper is working. Found several entries at Cisco to explain that duplicate IP addresses causes this error.
Excellent spot
Error messages pretty explicit - none of the other answers make sense.
Ignore this - I was wrong
There are 2 solutions. 1). Expanding the DHCP Scope 2). Changing the IP address of the G0/2 interface on R2 to an IP outside the DCHP Scope. Then the scope which only supports 2 hosts would be good enough for the only 2 hosts on the subnet behind G0/2 interface. What a crazy question! Who will have such scenario in real life? So, it looks like you can answer B or D. Insane!