Deal of The Day! Hurry Up, Grab the Special Discount - Save 25% - Ends In 00:00:00 Coupon code: SAVE25
Welcome to Pass4Success

- Free Preparation Discussions

Cisco Exam 300-410 Topic 9 Question 111 Discussion

Actual exam question for Cisco's 300-410 exam
Question #: 111
Topic #: 9
[All 300-410 Questions]

Refer to the exhibit.

Refer to lhe exhibit An engineer must filter EIGRP updates that are received to block all 10 10 10.0/24 prefixes The engineer tests the distribute list and finds one associated prefix. Which action resolves the issue?

Show Suggested Answer Hide Answer
Suggested Answer: B

Contribute your Thoughts:

Aileen
2 days ago
But A makes more sense because it mentions a deny statement in the route map.
upvoted 0 times
...
Virgie
4 days ago
I disagree, I believe the correct answer is B.
upvoted 0 times
...
Willard
15 days ago
I'm leaning towards D. Denying the specific prefix with the correct subnet mask seems like the way to go.
upvoted 0 times
...
Aileen
1 months ago
I think the answer is A.
upvoted 0 times
...
Elza
1 months ago
Haha, I bet the engineer who wrote this question was feeling pretty clever. Gotta love these tricky EIGRP questions!
upvoted 0 times
Stevie
7 days ago
B) There is a permit in the ACL that allows this prefix into EIGRP. The ACL should be modified to deny 10.10.10.0 0.0.0.255.
upvoted 0 times
...
Dalene
14 days ago
A) There is a permit in the route map that allows this prefix A deny 20 statement is required with a match condition to match a new ACL that denies all prefixes
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Elvis
1 months ago
I'm not sure, but I think B is the best option. Modifying the ACL to deny the specific prefix is the most targeted approach.
upvoted 0 times
Cherilyn
3 days ago
I think B is the best option too. It's important to be specific when blocking prefixes.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Tamesha
2 months ago
C seems like the most straightforward solution to me. A deny statement with no match condition should block the prefix effectively.
upvoted 0 times
Noel
4 days ago
User3: Yeah, that seems like the most straightforward solution.
upvoted 0 times
...
Jesusita
7 days ago
User2: I agree, a deny statement with no match condition should do the trick.
upvoted 0 times
...
Hermila
8 days ago
User1: I think C is the best option.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Merissa
2 months ago
Hmm, I think the answer is B. The ACL should be modified to deny the specific prefix, not just use a generic deny statement.
upvoted 0 times
...

Save Cancel
az-700  pass4success  az-104  200-301  200-201  cissp  350-401  350-201  350-501  350-601  350-801  350-901  az-720  az-305  pl-300  

Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /pass.php:70) in /pass.php on line 77