Policy-Based Routing (PBR)

A network engineer is troubleshooting a PBR configuration on a Cisco router. The engineer has configured a route map named 'PBR-MAP' with a match statement matching traffic from source IP 10.1.1.0/24 and a set statement to forward the traffic to next-hop 192.168.1.2. The engineer applies the route map to the incoming interface GigabitEthernet0/0 using 'ip policy route-map PBR-MAP'. However, traffic from 10.1.1.0/24 is still being forwarded using the routing table instead of the PBR next-hop. What is the most likely cause?

A network engineer is troubleshooting PBR on a Cisco router where traffic from VLAN 100 (192.168.10.0/24) should be forwarded to next-hop 10.10.10.2 via a route map named 'VLAN100-PBR'. The engineer has applied the route map to interface GigabitEthernet0/0.100 (subinterface) using 'ip policy route-map VLAN100-PBR'. The engineer verifies that the route map is correctly configured with 'match ip address 100' and 'set ip next-hop 10.10.10.2', and the access list 100 matches the source subnet. However, traffic from VLAN 100 is still forwarded using the routing table. What is the most likely cause?

A network engineer is troubleshooting PBR on a Cisco router where traffic from source 10.1.2.0/24 should be forwarded to next-hop 192.168.1.2. The route map 'PBR-TEST' is configured with 'match ip address 101' and 'set ip next-hop 192.168.1.2'. The engineer applies the route map to interface GigabitEthernet0/0. The engineer notices that PBR works for most traffic, but traffic from a specific host (10.1.2.100) is not being policy-routed. The engineer checks the ACL 101 and confirms it includes 10.1.2.0/24. What is the most likely cause?

A network engineer is troubleshooting PBR on a Cisco router where traffic from subnet 172.16.1.0/24 should be forwarded to next-hop 10.10.10.2. The route map 'PBR-172' is applied to interface GigabitEthernet0/0. The engineer notices that the PBR policy is not working at all. The engineer checks the route map configuration and sees 'match ip address 110' and 'set ip next-hop 10.10.10.2'. The engineer also checks the ACL 110 and confirms it matches 172.16.1.0/24. The engineer then checks the interface configuration and sees 'ip policy route-map PBR-172' applied. What should the engineer do next to isolate the issue?

A network engineer is troubleshooting PBR on a Cisco router where traffic from subnet 192.168.20.0/24 should be forwarded to next-hop 10.20.20.2. The route map 'PBR-20' is configured with 'match ip address 120' and 'set ip next-hop 10.20.20.2'. The engineer applies the route map to interface GigabitEthernet0/0. The engineer notices that PBR works for traffic from 192.168.20.0/24, but traffic from other subnets is also being forwarded to 10.20.20.2. What is the most likely cause?

A network engineer is troubleshooting PBR on a Cisco router where traffic from subnet 10.10.10.0/24 should be forwarded to next-hop 192.168.100.2. The route map 'PBR-10' is configured with 'match ip address 130' and 'set ip next-hop 192.168.100.2'. The engineer applies the route map to interface GigabitEthernet0/0. The engineer notices that PBR is not working, and the router is dropping packets instead of forwarding them. The engineer checks the ACL 130 and confirms it matches 10.10.10.0/24. What is the most likely cause?

A network engineer is troubleshooting PBR on a Cisco router where traffic from subnet 172.16.0.0/16 should be forwarded to next-hop 10.10.10.2. The route map 'PBR-172' is configured with 'match ip address 140' and 'set ip next-hop 10.10.10.2'. The engineer applies the route map to interface GigabitEthernet0/0. The engineer notices that PBR works for traffic from 172.16.1.0/24 but not for traffic from 172.16.2.0/24. The engineer checks the ACL 140 and confirms it includes the entire 172.16.0.0/16 subnet. What is the most likely cause?

A network engineer is troubleshooting PBR on a Cisco router where traffic from subnet 10.1.1.0/24 should be forwarded to next-hop 192.168.1.2. The route map 'PBR-10' is configured with 'match ip address 150' and 'set ip next-hop 192.168.1.2'. The engineer applies the route map to interface GigabitEthernet0/0. The engineer notices that PBR is not working, and the router is using the routing table to forward traffic. The engineer checks the ACL 150 and confirms it matches 10.1.1.0/24. The engineer also checks the interface configuration and sees 'ip policy route-map PBR-10' applied. What is the most likely cause?

A network engineer is troubleshooting PBR on a Cisco router where traffic from subnet 192.168.50.0/24 should be forwarded to next-hop 10.50.50.2. The route map 'PBR-50' is configured with 'match ip address 160' and 'set ip next-hop 10.50.50.2'. The engineer applies the route map to interface GigabitEthernet0/0. The engineer notices that PBR works for traffic from 192.168.50.0/24, but the router is also policy-routing traffic from other subnets that should not be affected. The engineer checks the ACL 160 and confirms it only matches 192.168.50.0/24. What is the most likely cause?

A network engineer runs the following command on Router R1: R1# show route-map route-map PBR-ROUTE, permit, sequence 10 Match clauses: ip address (access-lists): ACL-PBR Set clauses: ip next-hop 192.168.1.2 Policy routing matches: 0 packets, 0 bytes route-map PBR-ROUTE, permit, sequence 20 Match clauses: Set clauses: ip next-hop 192.168.2.2 Policy routing matches: 0 packets, 0 bytes R1# show ip policy Interface Route-map GigabitEthernet0/0 PBR-ROUTE Based on this output, what is the most likely problem?

A network engineer runs the following command on Router R1: R1# show ip policy Interface Route-map GigabitEthernet0/1 PBR-MAP R1# show route-map PBR-MAP route-map PBR-MAP, permit, sequence 10 Match clauses: ip address (access-lists): 101 Set clauses: ip next-hop verify-availability 10.1.1.2 10 track 1 Policy routing matches: 150 packets, 12000 bytes R1# show track 1 Track 1 IP SLA 1 reachability Reachability is Down 1 change, last change 00:05:20 Latest operation return code: timeout Tracked by: ROUTE-MAP 0 Based on this output, what is the most likely outcome?

A network engineer runs the following command on Router R1: R1# show ip policy Interface Route-map GigabitEthernet0/0 PBR-TEST R1# show route-map PBR-TEST route-map PBR-TEST, permit, sequence 10 Match clauses: ip address (access-lists): 110 Set clauses: ip next-hop 192.168.100.1 Policy routing matches: 0 packets, 0 bytes R1# show access-lists 110 Extended IP access list 110 10 permit tcp 10.0.0.0 0.255.255.255 any eq 80 20 permit tcp 10.0.0.0 0.255.255.255 any eq 443 R1# show ip route 192.168.100.1 Routing entry for 192.168.100.1/32 Known via "ospf 1", distance 110, metric 20 Last update from 10.1.1.2 on GigabitEthernet0/1 Based on this output, what is the most likely reason for zero policy routing matches?

A network engineer runs the following command on Router R1: R1# show ip policy Interface Route-map GigabitEthernet0/0 PBR-QOS R1# show route-map PBR-QOS route-map PBR-QOS, permit, sequence 10 Match clauses: ip address (access-lists): 120 Set clauses: ip next-hop 10.0.0.2 Policy routing matches: 500 packets, 45000 bytes R1# show access-lists 120 Extended IP access list 120 10 permit ip 192.168.1.0 0.0.0.255 any R1# debug ip policy Policy routing debugging is on *Mar 1 00:05:23.123: IP: s=192.168.1.100 (GigabitEthernet0/0), d=8.8.8.8, len 100, policy match *Mar 1 00:05:23.123: IP: s=192.168.1.100 (GigabitEthernet0/0), d=8.8.8.8, len 100, policy rejected Based on this output, what is the most likely problem?

A network engineer runs the following command on Router R1: R1# show ip policy Interface Route-map GigabitEthernet0/0 PBR-VOICE R1# show route-map PBR-VOICE route-map PBR-VOICE, permit, sequence 10 Match clauses: ip address (access-lists): 130 Set clauses: ip next-hop 192.168.10.1 Policy routing matches: 0 packets, 0 bytes R1# show access-lists 130 Extended IP access list 130 10 permit udp any any range 16384 32767 R1# show interfaces GigabitEthernet0/0 GigabitEthernet0/0 is up, line protocol is up Internet address is 10.1.1.1/24 R1# show ip route 192.168.10.1 % Network not in routing table Based on this output, what is the most likely problem?

A network engineer runs the following command on Router R1: R1# show ip policy Interface Route-map GigabitEthernet0/0 PBR-MULTI R1# show route-map PBR-MULTI route-map PBR-MULTI, permit, sequence 10 Match clauses: ip address (access-lists): 140 Set clauses: ip next-hop 10.0.0.2 10.0.0.3 Policy routing matches: 200 packets, 18000 bytes R1# show ip route 10.0.0.2 Routing entry for 10.0.0.2/32 Known via "eigrp 1", distance 90, metric 28160 Last update from 192.168.1.2 on GigabitEthernet0/1 R1# show ip route 10.0.0.3 % Network not in routing table Based on this output, what is the most likely behavior for packets matching ACL 140?

A network engineer runs the following command on Router R1: R1# show ip policy Interface Route-map GigabitEthernet0/0 PBR-DEFAULT R1# show route-map PBR-DEFAULT route-map PBR-DEFAULT, permit, sequence 10 Match clauses: ip address (access-lists): 150 Set clauses: ip next-hop 10.0.0.2 Policy routing matches: 0 packets, 0 bytes route-map PBR-DEFAULT, deny, sequence 20 Match clauses: Set clauses: Policy routing matches: 0 packets, 0 bytes R1# show access-lists 150 Extended IP access list 150 10 permit ip 192.168.1.0 0.0.0.255 any R1# show ip route 10.0.0.2 Routing entry for 10.0.0.2/32 Known via "ospf 1", distance 110, metric 20 Last update from 10.1.1.2 on GigabitEthernet0/1 Based on this output, what is the most likely problem?

A network engineer runs the following command on Router R1: R1# show ip policy Interface Route-map GigabitEthernet0/0 PBR-SET R1# show route-map PBR-SET route-map PBR-SET, permit, sequence 10 Match clauses: ip address (access-lists): 160 Set clauses: ip next-hop 192.168.1.2 ip tos 184 Policy routing matches: 300 packets, 24000 bytes R1# show access-lists 160 Extended IP access list 160 10 permit ip 10.0.0.0 0.255.255.255 any R1# show interfaces GigabitEthernet0/0 GigabitEthernet0/0 is up, line protocol is up Internet address is 10.0.0.1/24 Based on this output, a packet from source 10.0.0.5 to destination 8.8.8.8 arrives on GigabitEthernet0/0. What is the most likely behavior?

A network engineer runs the following command on Router R1: R1# show ip policy Interface Route-map GigabitEthernet0/0 PBR-TRACK R1# show route-map PBR-TRACK route-map PBR-TRACK, permit, sequence 10 Match clauses: ip address (access-lists): 170 Set clauses: ip next-hop verify-availability 10.0.0.2 10 track 2 Policy routing matches: 100 packets, 8000 bytes R1# show track 2 Track 2 IP SLA 2 reachability Reachability is Up 2 changes, last change 00:01:30 Latest operation return code: ok Tracked by: ROUTE-MAP 0 R1# show ip route 10.0.0.2 Routing entry for 10.0.0.2/32 Known via "eigrp 1", distance 90, metric 28160 Last update from 192.168.1.2 on GigabitEthernet0/1 Based on this output, what is the most likely behavior for packets matching ACL 170?

Router R1 has the following configuration: ``` interface GigabitEthernet0/1 ip address 10.1.1.1 255.255.255.0 ip policy route-map PBR-OUT ! route-map PBR-OUT permit 10 match ip address 100 set ip next-hop 192.168.1.1 ! access-list 100 permit ip host 10.1.1.100 any ``` What is the effect of this configuration?

Router R2 has the following configuration: ``` interface GigabitEthernet0/2 ip address 10.2.2.2 255.255.255.0 ip policy route-map CHECK ! route-map CHECK permit 10 match ip address 101 set interface GigabitEthernet0/3 ! access-list 101 permit tcp any any eq 80 ``` What is the effect of this configuration?

Router R3 has the following configuration: ``` interface GigabitEthernet0/4 ip address 10.3.3.3 255.255.255.0 ip policy route-map PBR-IN ! route-map PBR-IN permit 10 match ip address 102 set ip next-hop verify-availability 192.168.2.1 10 track 1 ! access-list 102 permit ip 10.3.3.0 0.0.0.255 any ``` What is the effect of the 'set ip next-hop verify-availability' command?

Router R4 has the following configuration: ``` interface GigabitEthernet0/5 ip address 10.4.4.4 255.255.255.0 ip policy route-map PBR-DEFAULT ! route-map PBR-DEFAULT permit 10 set ip default next-hop 192.168.3.1 ``` What is the effect of this configuration?

Router R5 has the following configuration: ``` interface GigabitEthernet0/6 ip address 10.5.5.5 255.255.255.0 ip policy route-map PBR-METRIC ! route-map PBR-METRIC permit 10 match ip address 103 set metric 50 ! access-list 103 permit ip any any ``` What is the effect of the 'set metric 50' command in this PBR context?

Router R6 has the following configuration: ``` interface GigabitEthernet0/7 ip address 10.6.6.6 255.255.255.0 ip policy route-map PBR-MISS ! route-map PBR-MISS permit 10 match ip address 104 set ip next-hop 192.168.4.1 ! access-list 104 permit ip 10.6.6.0 0.0.0.255 192.168.0.0 0.0.255.255 ``` What is missing in this configuration?

In Policy-Based Routing (PBR), what is the default action for packets that do not match any route-map sequence?

Which of the following is a valid 'set' action in a PBR route-map?

When using 'set ip next-hop verify-availability', what mechanism does the router use to determine if the next-hop is reachable?

Which TWO commands would a network engineer use to verify the operation of Policy-Based Routing (PBR) on a Cisco IOS router? (Choose TWO.)

Which TWO statements about Policy-Based Routing (PBR) are true? (Choose TWO.)

Which TWO configuration steps are required to implement Policy-Based Routing (PBR) on a Cisco router? (Choose TWO.)

Which THREE symptoms indicate that Policy-Based Routing (PBR) is not working as expected? (Choose THREE.)

A large enterprise network is experiencing intermittent reachability from a specific subnet (10.1.1.0/24) to a critical server (192.168.10.10). Router R1 has PBR configured to forward traffic from 10.1.1.0/24 to next-hop 10.2.2.2, but traffic is also being load-balanced via the routing table to 10.3.3.3. Router R2 shows: 'show ip route 192.168.10.10' returns a route via 10.4.4.4, but 'show ip policy' on R1 shows the route-map is applied. What is the root cause?

A multi-router network uses PBR to steer traffic from subnet 172.16.1.0/24 through a WAN link (next-hop 10.10.10.2). After a routing change, traffic from this subnet is being dropped. Router R1 shows: 'show route-map' indicates the route-map is applied, 'show ip policy' shows the policy on the interface, but 'debug ip policy' shows 'PBR: no route to next-hop 10.10.10.2'. What is the root cause?

A DMVPN network uses PBR to route traffic from spoke routers to specific hubs based on source IP. After a hub failure, traffic from spoke 1 (source 192.168.1.0/24) is being sent to a backup hub, but the backup hub drops the traffic. Router R1 (spoke) shows: 'show ip policy' shows PBR applied, 'debug ip policy' shows traffic being forwarded to next-hop 10.1.1.2 (backup hub). Router R2 (backup hub) shows: 'show ip route 192.168.1.0' returns no route. What is the root cause?

A network uses PBR to route traffic from a specific VLAN (10.10.10.0/24) through a firewall (next-hop 192.168.1.1). After a firewall replacement, traffic from this VLAN is being dropped. Router R1 shows: 'show route-map' shows the route-map is applied, 'show ip policy' shows the policy on the VLAN interface, but 'debug ip packet' shows packets being sent to 192.168.1.1 and no response. Router R2 (firewall) shows: 'show ip route 10.10.10.0' returns a route via 192.168.2.1, but the firewall is configured to drop traffic from 10.10.10.0/24. What is the root cause?

A network uses PBR to load-balance traffic from two subnets (10.1.1.0/24 and 10.2.2.0/24) across two ISPs (next-hops 100.64.1.1 and 100.64.2.2). After a routing change, traffic from 10.1.1.0/24 is being sent to both ISPs intermittently. Router R1 shows: 'show route-map' shows the route-map with two match clauses, 'debug ip policy' shows traffic from 10.1.1.0/24 being sent to both next-hops. What is the root cause?

A network uses PBR to route traffic from a specific host (10.1.1.1) through a VPN tunnel (next-hop 10.10.10.2). After a VPN tunnel failure, traffic from this host is being dropped. Router R1 shows: 'show ip policy' shows PBR applied, 'debug ip policy' shows 'PBR: no route to next-hop 10.10.10.2', but 'show ip route 10.10.10.2' shows a route via a different interface. What is the root cause?

A network uses PBR to route traffic from a specific subnet (172.16.1.0/24) through a WAN link (next-hop 10.10.10.2). After a routing change, traffic from this subnet is being sent to the WAN link but is not reaching the destination. Router R1 shows: 'show route-map' shows the route-map is applied, 'debug ip policy' shows traffic being forwarded to 10.10.10.2, but 'show ip route' on R1 shows a route to the destination via a different next-hop (10.20.20.2). What is the root cause?

A network uses PBR to route traffic from a specific VLAN (10.10.10.0/24) through a firewall (next-hop 192.168.1.1). After a firewall policy change, traffic from this VLAN is being dropped. Router R1 shows: 'show ip policy' shows PBR applied, 'debug ip policy' shows traffic being forwarded to 192.168.1.1, but 'debug ip packet' on R1 shows packets being sent to 192.168.1.1 and no response. Router R2 (firewall) shows: 'show ip route 10.10.10.0' returns a route via 192.168.2.1, but 'show access-lists' on the firewall shows an ACL that denies traffic from 10.10.10.0/24. What is the root cause?

A network uses PBR to route traffic from a specific subnet (192.168.1.0/24) through a WAN link (next-hop 10.10.10.2). After a routing change, traffic from this subnet is being sent to the WAN link but is being dropped. Router R1 shows: 'show route-map' shows the route-map is applied, 'debug ip policy' shows traffic being forwarded to 10.10.10.2, but 'show ip route 10.10.10.2' shows a route via a different interface (GigabitEthernet0/1). What is the root cause?

A network engineer runs the following command to troubleshoot a Policy-Based Routing (PBR) issue: R1# show route-map PBR-MAP route-map PBR-MAP, permit, sequence 10 Match clauses: ip address (access-lists): 101 Set clauses: ip next-hop 10.1.1.2 ip next-hop verify-availability Policy routing matches: 0 packets, 0 bytes What does this output indicate?

A network engineer runs the following command to troubleshoot a Policy-Based Routing (PBR) issue: R1# show ip policy Interface Route-map FastEthernet0/0 PBR-MAP What does this output indicate?

A network engineer runs the following command to troubleshoot a Policy-Based Routing (PBR) issue: R1# debug ip policy Policy routing debugging is on R1# *Mar 1 00:05:23.123: IP: s=192.168.1.10 (FastEthernet0/0), d=10.1.1.100, len 100, policy match *Mar 1 00:05:23.123: IP: s=192.168.1.10 (FastEthernet0/0), d=10.1.1.100, len 100, policy rejected What does this output indicate?

A network engineer runs the following command to troubleshoot a Policy-Based Routing (PBR) issue: R1# show route-map PBR-MAP route-map PBR-MAP, permit, sequence 10 Match clauses: ip address (access-lists): 101 Set clauses: ip next-hop 10.1.1.2 ip next-hop verify-availability Policy routing matches: 100 packets, 12000 bytes What does this output indicate?

A network engineer runs the following command to troubleshoot a Policy-Based Routing (PBR) issue: R1# debug ip policy Policy routing debugging is on R1# *Mar 1 00:10:45.456: IP: s=172.16.1.5 (FastEthernet0/0), d=8.8.8.8, len 64, policy match *Mar 1 00:10:45.456: IP: s=172.16.1.5 (FastEthernet0/0), d=8.8.8.8, len 64, policy routed *Mar 1 00:10:45.456: IP: FastEthernet0/0 to Serial0/0 10.1.1.2 What does this output indicate?

A network engineer runs the following command to troubleshoot a Policy-Based Routing (PBR) issue: R1# show ip local policy Interface Route-map local PBR-LOCAL What does this output indicate?

A network engineer runs the following command to troubleshoot a Policy-Based Routing (PBR) issue: R1# show route-map PBR-MAP route-map PBR-MAP, permit, sequence 10 Match clauses: ip address (access-lists): 101 Set clauses: ip next-hop 10.1.1.2 Policy routing matches: 50 packets, 6000 bytes What does this output indicate?

A network engineer runs the following command to troubleshoot a Policy-Based Routing (PBR) issue: R1# debug ip policy Policy routing debugging is on R1# *Mar 1 00:15:30.789: IP: s=10.0.0.1 (FastEthernet0/0), d=20.0.0.1, len 100, policy match *Mar 1 00:15:30.789: IP: s=10.0.0.1 (FastEthernet0/0), d=20.0.0.1, len 100, policy rejected *Mar 1 00:15:30.789: IP: s=10.0.0.2 (FastEthernet0/0), d=20.0.0.2, len 100, policy match *Mar 1 00:15:30.789: IP: s=10.0.0.2 (FastEthernet0/0), d=20.0.0.2, len 100, policy routed *Mar 1 00:15:30.789: IP: FastEthernet0/0 to GigabitEthernet0/1 192.168.1.1 What does this output indicate?

A network engineer runs the following command to troubleshoot a Policy-Based Routing (PBR) issue: R1# show ip policy Interface Route-map FastEthernet0/0 PBR-MAP Serial0/0 PBR-MAP What does this output indicate?

What is the default administrative distance for a route installed by Policy-Based Routing (PBR) using the 'set ip next-hop' command?

Which statement correctly describes the behavior of PBR when the next-hop specified in a 'set ip next-hop' command is unreachable?

What is the default maximum number of route-map entries that can be processed in a single PBR policy on Cisco IOS-XE?

Which statement about PBR and the 'set interface' command is correct?

What is the default behavior of PBR when a 'set ip next-hop' and a 'set ip default next-hop' are both configured in the same route-map entry?

Which statement about PBR and the 'match ip address' command is correct?

What is the default behavior of PBR when a 'set ip next-hop' is configured with an IP address that is not directly connected?

Which statement about PBR and the 'set ip precedence' command is correct?

What is the default action for a packet that does not match any route-map entry in a PBR policy?

Drag and drop the steps to configure and verify Policy-Based Routing (PBR) into the correct order, from first to last.

Drag and drop the steps to troubleshoot Policy-Based Routing (PBR) adjacency or connectivity failures into the correct order, from first to last.

Drag and drop the steps to verify and validate Policy-Based Routing (PBR) operational state into the correct order, from first to last.

Which TWO statements correctly describe the behavior of Policy-Based Routing (PBR) when using the 'set ip next-hop' and 'set ip default next-hop' commands? (Choose TWO.)

Which TWO statements about PBR and route-map sequence numbers are true? (Choose TWO.)

An engineer configures PBR on a Cisco router using the following commands: 'route-map PBR permit 10', 'match ip address 100', 'set ip next-hop 10.1.1.1', and applies it inbound on interface GigabitEthernet0/1. Which TWO statements about this configuration are true? (Choose TWO.)

Which TWO statements about PBR and the 'set ip next-hop recursive' command are true? (Choose TWO.)

Which TWO statements about PBR and the 'set ip tos' command are true? (Choose TWO.)

A network engineer configures PBR on a router to route traffic from subnet 10.1.1.0/24 via next-hop 192.168.1.2. The route-map uses match ip address and set ip next-hop commands. However, traffic sourced from 10.1.1.5 still follows the routing table instead of the PBR policy. What is the most likely cause?

An engineer configures PBR with a route-map that sets the next-hop to 10.0.0.2 for traffic matching ACL 100. The route-map is applied inbound on interface GigabitEthernet0/1. Traffic from a host on that interface is forwarded via 10.0.0.2, but the engineer notices that packets with destination IP 10.0.0.2 itself are also being redirected, causing a loop. Why does this happen?

A router is configured with PBR using a route-map that sets the next-hop to 192.168.2.1 for traffic matching ACL 101. The engineer also configures 'ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 192.168.1.1' as a default route. Traffic that matches ACL 101 is correctly forwarded to 192.168.2.1, but traffic that does not match ACL 101 is dropped instead of using the default route. What is the most likely explanation?

An engineer configures PBR with a route-map that sets the next-hop to 10.0.0.2 for traffic from subnet 192.168.1.0/24. The route-map is applied inbound on interface GigabitEthernet0/0. The engineer also enables 'ip cef' globally. Traffic from 192.168.1.0/24 is not being policy-routed; instead, it follows the routing table. What is the most likely cause?

A router is configured with PBR using a route-map that sets the next-hop to 10.0.0.2 for traffic matching ACL 100. The engineer also configures 'set ip default next-hop 10.0.0.3' in the same route-map sequence. Traffic that matches ACL 100 is forwarded to 10.0.0.2, but traffic that does not match ACL 100 is forwarded to 10.0.0.3 only if there is no route in the routing table. However, the engineer expects all unmatched traffic to go to 10.0.0.3 regardless of the routing table. What is the misunderstanding?

An engineer configures PBR on a router to route traffic from VLAN 10 to next-hop 192.168.1.2 using a route-map. The route-map is applied inbound on the VLAN interface. The engineer also configures 'ip policy route-map' on the same interface. However, traffic from VLAN 10 is not being policy-routed; instead, it is forwarded normally. The router is running IOS-XE. What is the most likely cause?

A router is configured with PBR using a route-map that sets the next-hop to 10.0.0.2 for traffic from subnet 192.168.1.0/24. The route-map is applied inbound on interface GigabitEthernet0/0. The engineer also configures 'ip policy route-map' on the same interface. However, the engineer notices that PBR is not working for traffic that is fragmented. What is the most likely reason?

An engineer configures PBR on a router to route traffic from subnet 10.1.1.0/24 to next-hop 192.168.1.2. The route-map is applied inbound on interface GigabitEthernet0/0. The engineer also configures 'ip policy route-map' on the same interface. However, the engineer notices that PBR is not working for multicast traffic from that subnet. What is the most likely explanation?

A router is configured with PBR using a route-map that sets the next-hop to 10.0.0.2 for traffic from subnet 192.168.1.0/24. The route-map is applied inbound on interface GigabitEthernet0/0. The engineer also configures 'ip policy route-map' on the same interface. The engineer notices that PBR is working for TCP traffic but not for UDP traffic from the same subnet. What is the most likely cause?