Practise routing and connectivity troubleshooting scenarios involving R1, R2, R3, static routes, OSPF, next hops and routing tables.
Start Scenario PracticeYou are connected to R1. Configure IPv4 and IPv6 addressing on R1's interfaces and verify reachability to R2. The current configuration has a wrong subnet mask on G0/0, missing default gateway for IPv4, and R1's IPv6 address is configured using EUI-64 while R2 uses a static IPv6 address. Fix these issues so that R1 can ping both R2's IPv4 and IPv6 addresses.
Explanation: The problem had three issues: (1) R1's G0/0 subnet mask was /24 (255.255.255.0) but R2's G0/0 was /30 (255.255.255.252), causing an IP subnet mismatch. (2) R1 lacked a default gateway for IPv4; the static route pointed to 192.0.2.254 which is not reachable. (3) R1's IPv6 EUI-64 configuration on G0/0 generates an interface ID from the MAC, but R2 expects a static address 2001:db8:1::2/64, so R1 must use a static IPv6 address on the same subnet. The fix: change R1's G0/0 mask to /30, add a default route via R2's G0/0 IP (192.0.2.2), and configure a static IPv6 address (e.g., 2001:db8:1::1/64) on R1's G0/0.
A small office uses PAT for user Internet access. What mechanism does PAT use to allow many users to share one public address while keeping their sessions distinct?
Explanation: PAT (Port Address Translation) distinguishes multiple inside sessions by rewriting the source port number for each connection while using the same public IP address. This transport-layer port translation allows many internal hosts to share one outside address without conflict. The correct answer identifies the use of port numbers, which is the core mechanism. Increasing the NAT pool or using static NAT would not enable sharing of a single public address. Changing private IPs to be identical or disabling routes are irrelevant to PAT's operation.
A network engineer is troubleshooting OSPFv3 adjacency between two directly connected Cisco routers, R1 and R2, both running IOS-XE. The engineer configures OSPFv3 on both routers but notices that the adjacency does not form. The engineer runs 'show ospfv3 neighbor' on R1 and sees no neighbors. What is the most likely cause of this issue?
Explanation: Option B is correct because OSPFv3 requires explicit interface-level configuration to enable the protocol on a specific interface. The correct command is 'ospfv3 1 ipv6 area 0' (or 'ipv6 ospf 1 area 0' for the traditional OSPFv3 configuration). Without this command, the interface does not participate in OSPFv3, so no Hello packets are sent or received, preventing adjacency formation.
You are connected to R1 in a small office network. Configure PAT (NAT overload) so that hosts on the 192.168.1.0/24 LAN can access the Internet via the public IP 203.0.113.1 (the IP assigned to interface G0/0). Also configure a static NAT for the internal web server at 192.168.1.10 to the public IP 203.0.113.6. The current configuration has errors: the inside/outside interface assignments are swapped, the ACL for PAT does not match the inside subnet, and the PAT rule points to the wrong ACL. Fix all issues so that both PAT and static NAT work correctly.
Explanation: The main issues: (1) Interfaces were swapped — G0/0 (public) was inside and G0/1 (private) was outside. They should be reversed: G0/0 outside, G0/1 inside. (2) ACL 1 (used in the PAT command) permitted 192.168.2.0/24 instead of 192.168.1.0/24. (3) The PAT command for G0/0 used ACL 2, which was correct for the subnet but the interface was wrong. After fixing interface assignments and correcting ACL 1 to permit the inside subnet, the PAT command must use ACL 1 and the correct outside interface. The static NAT was correctly configured but needed the correct inside interface. The PAT translation uses the IP address of the outside interface (interface overload), so after fixing the configuration, inside hosts will be translated to 203.0.113.1, the primary IP of G0/0, not 203.0.113.5.
Two routers are directly connected over IPv6 and should form an OSPFv3 adjacency, but they do not. Link-local addressing is present on both interfaces. Which issue is most likely to prevent the adjacency?
Explanation: An area mismatch is a strong and direct explanation. In plain language, even though the routers can have valid IPv6 addressing and proper link-local communication on the interface, OSPFv3 still requires the two ends of the shared segment to agree on the area context for the adjacency. If one side places the interface in one area and the other side places it in another, the routers will not treat each other as valid neighbors. This is very similar in principle to OSPF for IPv4. Link-local addressing matters in OSPFv3, but the protocol still enforces key neighbor-formation checks. The correct answer is the one that focuses on a required protocol match rather than on a vague issue like hostname or cable color.
+10 more scenario questions available
Practice all Router R1 Cannot Reach R3 Practice QuestionsPractise routing and connectivity troubleshooting scenarios involving R1, R2, R3, static routes, OSPF, next hops and routing tables. These appear throughout the 200-301 and require you to apply your knowledge, not just recall facts.
Cisco doesn't publish an exact breakdown, but scenario-based questions (especially exhibit and command-output formats) make up a significant portion of the 200-301. Practicing each scenario type ensures you're ready for any format.
Yes. Courseiva provides free 200-301 scenario practice across all official exam domains. The platform includes scenario-based questions, command-output interpretation, topic-based practice, mock exams, and readiness tracking — no account required.
Launch a full Router R1 Cannot Reach R3 Practice Questions session with instant scoring and detailed explanations.
Start Scenario Practice →