Route Maps and Route Filtering

A network engineer is troubleshooting a BGP route filtering issue. Router R1 is advertising a prefix 10.1.1.0/24 to its eBGP neighbor R2, but R2 is not receiving it. The engineer checks R1's BGP configuration and sees a route-map named FILTER-OUT applied outbound to the neighbor. The route-map references an ACL that permits 10.1.1.0/24, but the prefix is still not being sent. What is the most likely cause?

A network engineer is troubleshooting a redistribution issue between OSPF and EIGRP. Router R3 is redistributing OSPF routes into EIGRP, but some OSPF external routes are not appearing in the EIGRP topology table. The engineer checks the redistribute command under EIGRP and sees a route-map named RM-OSPF that uses a prefix-list to match specific prefixes. The missing routes are permitted by the prefix-list. What is the most likely cause?

A network engineer is troubleshooting a PBR (Policy-Based Routing) issue on router R5. The engineer configured a route-map to set the next-hop for traffic from a specific source subnet. The route-map is applied to the incoming interface, but traffic from the source subnet is still being forwarded using the regular routing table. The engineer verifies that the ACL matches the traffic correctly. What is the most likely cause?

A network engineer is troubleshooting a route filtering problem with prefix-lists. Router R6 is using a prefix-list to filter routes from a BGP neighbor. The prefix-list is configured to permit only 192.168.0.0/16 and 192.168.1.0/24, but routes with prefix 192.168.2.0/24 are also being accepted. The engineer checks the prefix-list configuration and sees only two permit statements. What is the most likely cause?

A network engineer is troubleshooting a redistribution loop between OSPF and EIGRP. Router R7 is redistributing EIGRP routes into OSPF, and also redistributing OSPF routes into EIGRP. The engineer notices that some OSPF routes are appearing in the EIGRP topology table with a higher metric than expected, causing suboptimal routing. What is the most likely cause?

A network engineer is troubleshooting a BGP route-map that is supposed to set a community value on routes from a specific neighbor. The engineer configures a route-map with 'set community 100:100' and applies it inbound to the neighbor. After the configuration, the engineer checks the BGP table on the local router and sees that the routes do not have the community set. What is the most likely cause?

A network engineer is troubleshooting a route filtering issue using distribute-lists under OSPF. Router R8 has a distribute-list out applied to the OSPF process to filter routes being advertised to a specific neighbor. The distribute-list references an ACL that denies a specific prefix, but the prefix is still being advertised to the neighbor. What is the most likely cause?

A network engineer is troubleshooting a PBR route-map that is supposed to set the next-hop for traffic from a specific source to a different next-hop. The route-map is applied to the incoming interface, and the ACL matches the traffic. However, the engineer notices that the traffic is still being forwarded using the routing table. The engineer checks the route-map and sees that the 'set ip next-hop' command points to an IP address that is not reachable. What is the most likely result?

A network engineer is troubleshooting a BGP route-map that is supposed to prepend AS-path to routes from a specific neighbor. The engineer configures a route-map with 'set as-path prepend 65001' and applies it outbound to the neighbor. After the configuration, the engineer checks the BGP table on the neighbor and sees that the AS-path does not include the prepended AS. What is the most likely cause?

A network engineer runs the following command on Router R1: R1# show route-map route-map FILTER_OSPF, permit, sequence 10 Match clauses: ip address prefix-list OSPF_ROUTES Set clauses: Policy routing matches: 0 packets, 0 bytes route-map FILTER_OSPF, deny, sequence 20 Match clauses: Set clauses: Policy routing matches: 0 packets, 0 bytes Based on this output, which statement is correct?

A network engineer runs the following command on Router R1: R1# show ip bgp neighbors 192.168.1.2 advertised-routes BGP table version is 14, local router ID is 10.1.1.1 Status codes: s suppressed, d damped, h history, * valid, > best, i - internal, r RIB-failure, S Stale, m multipath, b backup-path, f RT-Filter, x best-external, a additional-path, c RIB-compressed, Origin codes: i - IGP, e - EGP, ? - incomplete Network Next Hop Metric LocPrf Weight Path *> 10.10.10.0/24 192.168.1.2 0 0 65001 i *> 10.20.20.0/24 192.168.1.2 0 0 65001 i Total number of prefixes 2 Based on this output, what is a likely issue?

A network engineer runs the following command on Router R1: R1# show ip policy Interface Route-map FastEthernet0/0 PBR_MAP R1# show route-map PBR_MAP route-map PBR_MAP, permit, sequence 10 Match clauses: ip address prefix-list MATCH_HTTP Set clauses: ip next-hop 10.10.10.2 Policy routing matches: 0 packets, 0 bytes Based on this output, what is the most likely problem?

A network engineer runs the following command on Router R1: R1# show ip eigrp topology 10.10.10.0/24 IP-EIGRP (AS 100): Topology entry for 10.10.10.0/24 State is Passive, Query origin flag is 1, 1 Successor(s), FD is 131072 Routing Descriptor Blocks: 10.1.1.2 (FastEthernet0/0), from 10.1.1.2, Send flag is 0x0 Composite metric is (131072/128256), Route is Internal Vector metric: Minimum bandwidth is 10000 Kbit Total delay is 100 microseconds Reliability is 255/255 Load is 1/255 Minimum MTU is 1500 Hop count is 1 R1# show ip route 10.10.10.0 Routing entry for 10.10.10.0/24 Known via "eigrp 100", distance 90, metric 131072, type internal Last update from 10.1.1.2 on FastEthernet0/0, 00:00:12 ago Routing Descriptor Blocks: * 10.1.1.2, from 10.1.1.2, 00:00:12 ago, via FastEthernet0/0 Route metric is 131072, traffic share count is 1 R1# show ip eigrp interfaces Interface Peers Xmit Queue Mean Pacing Time Multicast Pending Un/Reliable SRTT Un/Reliable Flow Timer Routes Fa0/0 1 0/0 10 0/10 50 0 Fa0/1 0 0/0 0 0/10 50 0 Based on this output, what is a likely issue?

A network engineer runs the following command on Router R1: R1# show ip ospf database OSPF Router with ID (10.1.1.1) (Process ID 1) Router Link States (Area 0) Link ID ADV Router Age Seq# Checksum Link count 10.1.1.1 10.1.1.1 100 0x80000001 0x00A0B0 1 10.2.2.2 10.2.2.2 200 0x80000003 0x00C0D0 2 Net Link States (Area 0) Link ID ADV Router Age Seq# Checksum 10.1.1.2 10.1.1.2 150 0x80000001 0x00E0F0 R1# show ip route ospf 10.0.0.0/8 is variably subnetted, 2 subnets, 2 masks O 10.2.2.0/24 [110/20] via 10.1.1.2, 00:10:00, FastEthernet0/0 Based on this output, what is a likely issue?

A network engineer runs the following command on Router R1: R1# show bgp ipv4 unicast 10.10.10.0/24 BGP routing table entry for 10.10.10.0/24, version 5 Paths: (1 available, best #1, table default) Advertised to update-groups: 1 Refresh Epoch 1 Local 10.1.1.2 from 10.1.1.2 (10.2.2.2) Origin IGP, metric 0, localpref 100, valid, external, best rx pathid: 0, tx pathid: 0x0 (received-only) Based on this output, what does the "(received-only)" flag indicate?

A network engineer runs the following command on Router R1: R1# show ip bgp neighbors 192.168.1.2 BGP neighbor is 192.168.1.2, remote AS 65001, external link BGP version 4, remote router ID 10.2.2.2 BGP state = Established, up for 00:15:00 Last read 00:00:05, hold time is 180, keepalive interval is 60 seconds Neighbor sessions: 1 active, is multisession capable Neighbor capabilities: Route refresh: advertised and received(new) Four-octets ASN: advertised and received Address family IPv4 Unicast: advertised and received Enhanced Refresh: advertised Message statistics: InQ depth is 0 OutQ depth is 0 Sent Rcvd Opens: 1 1 Notifications: 0 0 Updates: 10 5 Keepalives: 15 15 Route Refresh: 0 0 Total: 26 21 Default minimum time between advertisement runs is 30 seconds For address family: IPv4 Unicast Session: 192.168.1.2 BGP table version 14, neighbor version 14/0 Output queue size : 0 Index 1, Advertise bit 0 1 update-group member Incoming update prefix filter list: FILTER_IN Outgoing update prefix filter list: FILTER_OUT Sent Rcvd Prefixes: 2 2 Updates: 10 5 Based on this output, what is the effect of the prefix lists?

A network engineer runs the following command on Router R1: R1# show ip route vrf CUSTOMER_A Routing Table: CUSTOMER_A Codes: C - connected, S - static, R - RIP, M - mobile, B - BGP D - EIGRP, EX - EIGRP external, O - OSPF, IA - OSPF inter area N1 - OSPF NSSA external type 1, N2 - OSPF NSSA external type 2 E1 - OSPF external type 1, E2 - OSPF external type 2 i - IS-IS, su - IS-IS summary, L1 - IS-IS level-1, L2 - IS-IS level-2 ia - IS-IS inter area, * - candidate default, U - per-user static route o - ODR, P - periodic downloaded static route, H - NHRP, l - LISP a - application route + - replicated route, % - next hop override Gateway of last resort is not set 10.0.0.0/8 is variably subnetted, 2 subnets, 2 masks B 10.10.10.0/24 [200/0] via 192.168.1.2, 00:10:00 B 10.20.20.0/24 [200/0] via 192.168.1.2, 00:10:00 R1# show ip bgp vpnv4 vrf CUSTOMER_A BGP table version is 6, local router ID is 10.1.1.1 Status codes: s suppressed, d damped, h history, * valid, > best, i - internal, r RIB-failure, S Stale, m multipath, b backup-path, f RT-Filter, x best-external, a additional-path, c RIB-compressed, Origin codes: i - IGP, e - EGP, ? - incomplete Network Next Hop Metric LocPrf Weight Path Route Distinguisher: 100:1 (default for vrf CUSTOMER_A) *> 10.10.10.0/24 192.168.1.2 0 0 65001 i *> 10.20.20.0/24 192.168.1.2 0 0 65001 i *> 10.30.30.0/24 192.168.1.2 0 0 65001 i Based on this output, what is the likely issue?

A network engineer runs the following command on Router R1: R1# show ip bgp neighbors 10.1.1.2 advertised-routes BGP table version is 10, local router ID is 10.1.1.1 Status codes: s suppressed, d damped, h history, * valid, > best, i - internal, r RIB-failure, S Stale, m multipath, b backup-path, f RT-Filter, x best-external, a additional-path, c RIB-compressed, Origin codes: i - IGP, e - EGP, ? - incomplete Network Next Hop Metric LocPrf Weight Path *> 10.10.10.0/24 0.0.0.0 0 32768 i *> 10.20.20.0/24 0.0.0.0 0 32768 i R1# show route-map route-map BLOCK_RFC1918, permit, sequence 10 Match clauses: ip address prefix-list RFC1918 Set clauses: Policy routing matches: 0 packets, 0 bytes route-map BLOCK_RFC1918, deny, sequence 20 Match clauses: Set clauses: Policy routing matches: 0 packets, 0 bytes R1# show ip prefix-list RFC1918 ip prefix-list RFC1918: 3 entries seq 5 deny 10.0.0.0/8 le 32 seq 10 deny 172.16.0.0/12 le 32 seq 15 deny 192.168.0.0/16 le 32 seq 20 permit 0.0.0.0/0 le 32 Based on this output, what is the most likely issue?

Examine the following partial configuration on R1: !--- R1 configuration route-map RMAP permit 10 match ip address prefix-list PL-1 set metric 100 ! route-map RMAP permit 20 set metric 200 ! router eigrp 100 network 10.0.0.0 redistribute ospf 1 metric 1000 100 255 1 1500 route-map RMAP ! What is the effect of this configuration?

Consider the following configuration on router R2: !--- R2 configuration ip prefix-list FILTER seq 5 deny 10.1.0.0/16 le 24 ip prefix-list FILTER seq 10 permit 0.0.0.0/0 le 32 ! route-map BGP-IN permit 10 match ip address prefix-list FILTER ! router bgp 65000 neighbor 192.168.1.1 route-map BGP-IN in ! What is the effect of this configuration?

Examine the following configuration on R3: !--- R3 configuration access-list 10 permit 192.168.0.0 0.0.255.255 access-list 10 deny any ! route-map OSPF-REDIST permit 10 match ip address 10 set metric-type type-1 ! router ospf 1 redistribute eigrp 100 subnets route-map OSPF-REDIST ! What is the effect of this configuration?

Router R4 has the following configuration: !--- R4 configuration route-map SETTAG permit 10 match tag 100 set tag 200 ! route-map SETTAG permit 20 ! router bgp 65100 neighbor 10.0.0.1 route-map SETTAG in ! What is the effect of this configuration?

Consider the following configuration on R5: !--- R5 configuration ip prefix-list PL-2 seq 5 permit 10.0.0.0/8 ge 16 le 24 ! route-map RMAP permit 10 match ip address prefix-list PL-2 set community 100:100 ! router bgp 65200 neighbor 192.168.1.2 route-map RMAP out ! What is the effect of this configuration?

Examine the following configuration on R6: !--- R6 configuration route-map FILTER deny 10 match tag 50 ! route-map FILTER permit 20 ! router eigrp 200 distribute-list route-map FILTER in ! What is the effect of this configuration?

What is the default behavior of a route-map when a route does not match any match clause in any sequence?

In BGP, what is the effect of using a route-map with a set community command but without the additive keyword?

Which of the following is true regarding the use of prefix-lists versus access-lists for route filtering?

Which TWO commands can be used to verify the effect of a route-map applied to a BGP neighbor? (Choose TWO.)

Which TWO statements about route-maps used for route filtering are true? (Choose TWO.)

Which TWO configuration steps are required to filter routes using a prefix-list in a route-map applied to a BGP neighbor? (Choose TWO.)

Which THREE symptoms indicate that a route-map applied to a redistribution configuration is not working as intended? (Choose THREE.)

Which TWO statements about the 'match ip address' command within a route-map are true? (Choose TWO.)

A large enterprise network is experiencing intermittent connectivity between Site A (R1) and Site B (R2) over an MPLS L3VPN. R1 has the following relevant configuration: route-map RMAP-IN permit 10 match ip address prefix-list PL-ALLOW set extcommunity rt 100:1. Router R2 shows: 'show bgp vpnv4 unicast all neighbors 10.1.1.1 received-routes' lists only the default route, but 'show ip route vrf CUSTOMER' shows no default route. What is the root cause?

A network engineer is troubleshooting suboptimal routing in a DMVPN Phase 2 deployment. Hub router R1 has the following configuration: route-map SET-NEXT-HOP permit 10 match ip address prefix-list SPOKE-NET set ip next-hop 10.0.0.1. Spoke R2 shows: 'show ip route 192.168.1.0' points to the hub (R1) instead of directly to another spoke (R3). R2's NHRP shows 'show dmvpn' with no spoke-to-spoke tunnels established. What is the root cause?

An enterprise is redistributing EIGRP into OSPF on router R1. R1 has the following configuration: router eigrp 100 redistribute ospf 1 metric 10000 100 255 1 1500 route-map RMAP-OSPF. Router R2 (OSPF-only) shows: 'show ip route 10.1.1.0' as an O E2 route with metric 20, but 'show ip ospf database external 10.1.1.0' shows the forwarding address is 0.0.0.0. Router R3 (also OSPF) cannot reach 10.1.1.0. What is the root cause?

A network administrator is troubleshooting BGP path selection for a dual-homed enterprise. Router R1 (AS 65001) has the following configuration: route-map SET-LOCAL-PREF permit 10 match ip address prefix-list PREFER set local-preference 200. Router R2 (AS 65002) shows: 'show bgp ipv4 unicast 10.1.1.0' has two paths: one via R1 with local pref 200, and one via R3 with local pref 100. However, 'show ip route 10.1.1.0' on R2 shows the path via R3 is installed. What is the root cause?

An OSPF network is experiencing routing loops between two routers. R1 has the following configuration: interface GigabitEthernet0/0 ip address 10.1.1.1 255.255.255.0 ip ospf network point-to-point. R2 has: interface GigabitEthernet0/0 ip address 10.1.1.2 255.255.255.0 ip ospf network broadcast. Both routers are in area 0. R1 shows: 'show ip ospf neighbor' lists R2 as FULL/DR, but R2 shows R1 as FULL/DROTHER. Traffic between two subnets behind each router is looping. What is the root cause?

An EIGRP network is experiencing a stuck-in-active (SIA) condition for a route 192.168.1.0/24. R1 has the following configuration: router eigrp 100 network 10.0.0.0 distribute-list prefix PL-FILTER in. R2 shows: 'show ip eigrp topology 192.168.1.0/24' is in active state, and 'show ip eigrp events' shows that R1 sent a query but never received a reply. R1's prefix-list PL-FILTER permits only 10.0.0.0/8. What is the root cause?

An MPLS network is experiencing label distribution failures. Router R1 (LSR) has the following configuration: mpls ldp neighbor 10.0.0.2 password cisco. Router R2 shows: 'show mpls ldp neighbor' lists R1 as 'Oper Down' with reason 'TCP MD5 authentication failure'. R1's 'show mpls ldp neighbor' shows R2 as 'Oper Down' with the same reason. Both routers have the same password configured. What is the root cause?

A network engineer is troubleshooting reachability issues in a VRF-lite environment. R1 has the following configuration: ip vrf BLUE rd 100:1 route-target export 100:1 route-target import 100:1. R2 has: ip vrf BLUE rd 100:2 route-target export 100:2 route-target import 100:2. Both routers are connected via a link in the global routing table and are running OSPF in the VRF. R1 shows: 'show ip route vrf BLUE' has a route to 10.1.1.0/24 via OSPF, but R2 shows: 'show ip route vrf BLUE' does not have this route. What is the root cause?

An enterprise is using CoPP to protect the control plane. R1 has the following configuration: access-list 100 permit udp any any eq 179 class-map match-any BGP match access-group 100 policy-map COPP class BGP police 100000 20000 conform-action transmit exceed-action drop. Router R2 shows: 'show ip bgp summary' indicates the BGP session to R1 is flapping every 30 seconds. R1's 'show policy-map control-plane' shows drops for class BGP. What is the root cause?

A network engineer runs the following command to troubleshoot a route filtering issue: R1# debug ip bgp updates BGP(0): 10.1.1.2 rcvd UPDATE w/ attr: nexthop 10.1.1.2, origin i, metric 0, path 65001 65002 BGP(0): 10.1.1.2 rcvd UPDATE about 192.168.100.0/24 -- DENIED due to: community no-export; What does this output indicate?

A network engineer runs the following command to verify redistribution with route-maps: R1# show ip route 10.10.10.0 255.255.255.0 Routing entry for 10.10.10.0/24 Known via "eigrp 100", distance 170, metric 2560002816 Tag 100, type internal Last update from 10.1.1.2 on GigabitEthernet0/0, 00:00:45 ago Routing Descriptor Blocks: * 10.1.1.2, from 10.1.1.2, 00:00:45 ago, via GigabitEthernet0/0 Route metric is 2560002816, traffic share count is 1 Total delay is 2000 microseconds, minimum bandwidth is 100000 Kbit Reliability 255/255, minimum MTU 1500 bytes Loading 1/255, Hops 1 What does the 'Tag 100' indicate?

A network engineer runs the following command to troubleshoot OSPF route filtering: R1# show ip ospf database router 2.2.2.2 OSPF Router with ID (1.1.1.1) (Process ID 1) Router Link States (Area 0) LS age: 300 Options: (No TOS-capability, DC) LS Type: Router Links Link State ID: 2.2.2.2 Advertising Router: 2.2.2.2 LS Seq Number: 80000004 Checksum: 0x1234 Length: 48 Number of Links: 2 Link connected to: a Stub Network (Link ID) Network/subnet number: 10.1.1.0 (Link Data) Network Mask: 255.255.255.0 Number of TOS metrics: 0 TOS 0 Metrics: 10 Link connected to: a Transit Network (Link ID) Designated Router address: 10.1.1.2 (Link Data) Router Interface address: 10.1.1.1 Number of TOS metrics: 0 TOS 0 Metrics: 10 What does this output indicate?

A network engineer runs the following command to verify BGP route filtering: R1# show bgp ipv4 unicast 192.168.1.0/24 BGP routing table entry for 192.168.1.0/24, version 2 Paths: (1 available, best #1, table default) Advertised to update-groups: 1 Refresh Epoch 1 Local, (received & used) 10.1.1.2 (metric 20) from 10.1.1.2 (2.2.2.2) Origin IGP, metric 0, localpref 100, valid, internal, best rx pathid: 0, tx pathid: 0x0 Community: no-export What does the 'Community: no-export' indicate?

A network engineer runs the following command to troubleshoot redistribution with route-maps: R1# show ip route summary IP routing table name: Default-IP-Routing-Table(0) IP routing table maximum-paths: 32 Route Source Networks Subnets Replicates Overhead Memory (bytes) connected 0 3 0 0 480 static 0 0 0 0 0 ospf 1 2 5 0 0 1280 eigrp 100 1 2 0 0 640 bgp 65000 0 0 0 0 0 internal 2 Total 3 10 0 0 2400 What does this output indicate?

A network engineer runs the following command to verify MPLS LDP route filtering: R1# show mpls ldp bindings 192.168.10.0 255.255.255.0 lib entry: 192.168.10.0/24, rev 6 local binding: label: 21 remote binding: lsr: 2.2.2.2:0, label: 22 remote binding: lsr: 3.3.3.3:0, label: 23 What does this output indicate?

A network engineer runs the following command to troubleshoot DMVPN with NHRP filtering: R1# show ip nhrp detail 10.1.1.2/8 via 10.1.1.2, Tunnel0 created 00:10:00, expire 01:50:00 Type: dynamic, Flags: authoritative unique registered NBMA address: 192.168.1.2 (no-socket) (no-socket) What does this output indicate?

A network engineer runs the following command to troubleshoot IPsec with route-maps: R1# show crypto ipsec transform-set Transform set combined: { esp-aes 256 esp-sha-hmac } will negotiate = { Transport, } Transform set ESP-AES: { esp-aes 256 esp-sha-hmac } will negotiate = { Tunnel, } What does this output indicate?

A network engineer runs the following command to verify CoPP (Control Plane Policing) with route-maps: R1# show policy-map control-plane input class class-default Control Plane Service-policy input: CoPP Class-map: class-default (match-any) 12234 packets, 1234567 bytes 5 minute offered rate 1000 bps, drop rate 0 bps Match: any police: cir 8000 bps, bc 1500 bytes, be 1500 bytes conformed 12234 packets, 1234567 bytes; actions: transmit exceeded 0 packets, 0 bytes; actions: drop violated 0 packets, 0 bytes; actions: drop What does this output indicate?

In Cisco IOS-XE, what is the default behavior of the 'route-map' command when no 'match' or 'set' clauses are configured?

What is the default administrative distance for routes learned via OSPF in Cisco IOS?

Which BGP attribute is used as the first tie-breaker in the route selection process when comparing routes from different peers?

In OSPF, what is the default hello interval on a point-to-point network type?

What is the default maximum number of paths that BGP can install in the routing table using the 'maximum-paths' command in Cisco IOS?

Which statement correctly describes the behavior of the 'set metric' command in a route-map when applied to redistributed routes into OSPF?

In EIGRP, what is the default hello timer on a point-to-point interface?

What is the default maximum hop count for RIP routes in Cisco IOS?

Which BGP attribute is considered 'well-known mandatory' and must be present in all BGP update messages?

Drag and drop the steps to apply a route-map to filter BGP prefix advertisements into the correct order, from first to last.

Drag and drop the steps to troubleshoot Route Maps and Route Filtering adjacency or connectivity failures into the correct order, from first to last.

Drag and drop the steps to verify and validate Route Maps and Route Filtering operational state into the correct order, from first to last.

Which TWO statements about the behavior of route-map sequence numbers and the "continue" clause in Cisco IOS are true? (Choose TWO.)

Which TWO configuration changes will prevent a specific route from being redistributed from OSPF into EIGRP using a route-map? (Choose TWO.)

Which THREE commands can be used to verify the effects of a route-map applied to a BGP neighbor for outbound route filtering? (Choose THREE.)

Which TWO statements about using a route-map with the "set metric" command to influence route selection in EIGRP are true? (Choose TWO.)

Which TWO statements about using prefix-lists in conjunction with route-maps for filtering IPv4 routes are true? (Choose TWO.)

An engineer configures a route map to filter OSPF routes using a distribute-list in OSPF process 1. The distribute-list references a prefix-list that permits only the 10.0.0.0/8 network. After applying the distribute-list in, the engineer notices that the OSPF neighbor state remains stuck in EXSTART/EXCHANGE. Which is the most likely explanation?

An engineer configures EIGRP named mode with an offset-list applied to the EIGRP topology table. The offset-list increases the metric of a route learned from a neighbor. However, the route is still used as the successor even though the offset-list increased its metric above the feasible distance (FD) of another route. Which is the most likely explanation?

An engineer configures a BGP route reflector with a route map that sets a higher local preference on routes received from a client. The route map is applied to the neighbor statement for the client. Unexpectedly, the route reflector does not reflect the modified local preference to other clients. Which is the most likely explanation?

An engineer configures mutual redistribution between OSPF and EIGRP. A route map is used to set the OSPF metric type to type-1 when redistributing EIGRP routes into OSPF. However, the redistributed routes appear as type-2 in the OSPF database. Which is the most likely explanation?

An engineer configures a DMVPN Phase 2 network. Spoke routers are configured with a route map that sets the next-hop to the tunnel interface for routes learned from the hub. This is intended to allow spoke-to-spoke direct communication. However, spoke-to-spoke traffic still goes through the hub. Which is the most likely explanation?

An engineer configures IPsec site-to-site VPN with a route map that defines interesting traffic using an extended access list. The VPN tunnel is established, but traffic from the local LAN to the remote LAN is not encrypted. The engineer verifies that the access list matches the traffic correctly. Which is the most likely explanation?

An engineer configures Control Plane Policing (CoPP) with a policy map that includes a class-map matching BGP traffic. The policy map has a 'police' action that sets the rate-limit in bps. After applying the policy to the control plane, BGP sessions start flapping. Which is the most likely explanation?

An engineer configures unicast Reverse Path Forwarding (uRPF) in strict mode on an interface connected to a service provider. The router has a default route pointing to the ISP. Traffic from the ISP is being dropped by uRPF. Which is the most likely explanation?

An engineer configures a route map to filter BGP routes based on AS-path using a regex. The route map is applied inbound to an eBGP neighbor. The engineer notices that routes with an AS-path containing the neighbor's AS are still being accepted. Which is the most likely explanation?