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 300-510 Topic 5 Question 71 Discussion

Actual exam question for Cisco's 300-510 exam
Question #: 71
Topic #: 5
[All 300-510 Questions]

Refer to the exhibit.

Refer to the exhibit. Users at the branch office on R1 reported issue with an application at the home office on R4. While troubleshooting the issue, a network engineer determined that

The branch-office users can connect to the home office.

The IS-IS adjacencies between R1 and R2 and R1 and the branch office are up.

Traffic from R1 to the R2 10.20.1.0/24 network is moving normally.

The application at the home office is experiencing packet drops on the connection to the Branch, and R3 cannot reach the R1 172.16.10.0/24 network.

Which action resolves the issues?

Show Suggested Answer Hide Answer
Suggested Answer: C

Contribute your Thoughts:

Gene
6 days ago
Wait, isn't option B about configuring the IS-IS core instance on the R1 interface? That could be the solution if the issue is with the IS-IS adjacency.
upvoted 0 times
...
Tamra
7 days ago
Haha, this reminds me of that time I accidentally configured the wrong interface on a router. Classic network troubleshooting!
upvoted 0 times
...
Lezlie
10 days ago
I'm leaning towards option C - redistributing static connected routes on R4. That could help fix the packet drops on the connection to the branch office.
upvoted 0 times
...
Alica
11 days ago
Hmm, that makes sense. Thanks for sharing your opinion, Virgie.
upvoted 0 times
...
Virgie
12 days ago
I disagree, I believe the correct answer is B) Configure the IS-IS core instance on the R1 GigabitEthernet0/3 interface.
upvoted 0 times
...
Alica
13 days ago
I think the answer is A) Redistribute static connected routes in IS-IS on router R1.
upvoted 0 times
...
Bernadine
14 days ago
The question mentions that the IS-IS adjacencies between R1 and R2 are up, so that can't be the issue. I think it might have something to do with the R1 172.16.10.0/24 network not being reachable from R3.
upvoted 0 times
...
Leatha
14 days ago
Why do you think B is the correct answer?
upvoted 0 times
...
Page
15 days ago
I disagree, I believe the correct answer is B.
upvoted 0 times
...
Rickie
18 days ago
Hmm, this seems tricky. I'm not sure if I should redistribute static connected routes on R1 or R4. Maybe the problem is with the IS-IS adjacency between R1 and R2?
upvoted 0 times
...
Leatha
30 days ago
I think the answer is A.
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