CCNA Network Infrastructure and Connectivity Practice Question
A branch router has two equal-cost static routes to the same destination network. Both routes are displayed in the output of the show ip route command, and pings from the router to both next-hop IP addresses succeed. Despite this, all traffic heading toward that destination is egressing only a single interface. The technician suspects Cisco Express Forwarding (CEF) is not performing load balancing as expected. What should the technician do next?
⚠ Common exam trap
Candidates may incorrectly assume that interface bandwidth controls CEF load sharing. In reality, CEF equal-cost load balancing is based on a hash algorithm, not bandwidth. The correct verification is checking the CEF FIB entry and its adjacencies.
Answer choices
Why each option matters
Answer the question above first, then reveal the full breakdown to understand why each option is right or wrong.
Correct answer & explanation
✓
Issue the show ip cef <destination> detail command to inspect the CEF FIB entry and verify both adjacencies are present.
CEF performs load balancing over equal-cost paths using a hash of the packet's destination (or source/destination) address to select a path. The interface bandwidth is not a factor for equal-cost load balancing; it is used for metric calculation in routing protocols, not for CEF path selection. When traffic uses only one interface despite two equal-cost routes in the routing table, you should verify that CEF has installed both paths in its FIB and resolved both next-hop addresses to adjacencies. The command 'show ip cef <destination> detail' displays the FIB entry and associated adjacencies, confirming both paths are available for load balancing.
Answer analysis
Option-by-option breakdown
For each option: why learners choose it and why it is or isn't the right answer here.
- ✓
Issue the show ip cef <destination> detail command to inspect the CEF FIB entry and verify both adjacencies are present.
Why this is correct
show ip cef will display the FIB entry, which already includes both equal‑cost paths because they are in the routing table. It will confirm that CEF has installed both paths but will not reveal why traffic uses only one of them. This step restates what the routing table has already shown, skipping a deeper data‑plane check.
- ✗
Check the interface output rates with show interface to see if both interfaces are transmitting traffic.
Why it's wrong here
show interface counters would only confirm that one interface is carrying all traffic—the exact symptom already observed. It does not diagnose why CEF is failing to load‑balance. This is a monitoring action, not a troubleshooting step that identifies the cause.
- ✗
Display the routing table again with show ip route to ensure both static routes are still installed.
Why it's wrong here
Re-running show ip route is redundant because the routing table was already inspected and both equal-cost static routes are present; repeating the command merely re-confirms the control-plane RIB state. The problem lies in how CEF forwards packets, not in route installation. The RIB and the CEF FIB can diverge—CEF may have a stale or incomplete adjacency, or its per-interface load-sharing weights may be skewed—so checking the routing table again misses the data-plane behavior that actually determines traffic distribution. To diagnose the cause, you must inspect CEF-specific structures and interface parameters, not re-read the RIB.
- ✗
Verify the bandwidth configured on the outgoing interfaces using show interfaces or show running-config.
Why it's wrong here
CEF load‑balances among equal‑cost paths based on the hash of packet headers, but when interface bandwidth values differ, CEF may internally adjust the load‑sharing weight (e.g., by creating unequal‑cost load‑sharing for otherwise equal routes). Confirming the bandwidth values are identical eliminates or identifies a hidden mismatch as the cause.
When this WOULD be correct
The technician needs to check a data‑plane parameter that could silently skew CEF load‑balancing when two equal‑cost static routes are present but traffic stays on one path.
Option-by-option analysis
Why each answer is right or wrong
Understanding why wrong answers are wrong — and when they would be correct — is what separates a 750 score from a 900. The 200-301 exam frequently reuses these exact scenarios with slightly different constraints.
✓Issue the show ip cef <destination> detail command to inspect the CEF FIB entry and verify both adjacencies are present.Correct answer▾
Why this is correct
show ip cef will display the FIB entry, which already includes both equal‑cost paths because they are in the routing table. It will confirm that CEF has installed both paths but will not reveal why traffic uses only one of them. This step restates what the routing table has already shown, skipping a deeper data‑plane check.
✗Check the interface output rates with show interface to see if both interfaces are transmitting traffic.Wrong answer — click to see why▾
Why this is wrong here
Exam‑takers may confuse verifying the symptom with identifying the root cause. Seeing only one interface transmitting confirms the problem but offers no corrective insight.
✗Display the routing table again with show ip route to ensure both static routes are still installed.Wrong answer — click to see why▾
Why this is wrong here
A common reflex is to re‑verify the obvious; however, the question states the routes are present and next‑hops are reachable, so revisiting the RIB is redundant.
✗Verify the bandwidth configured on the outgoing interfaces using show interfaces or show running-config.Wrong answer — click to see why▾
Why this is wrong here
CEF load‑balances among equal‑cost paths based on the hash of packet headers, but when interface bandwidth values differ, CEF may internally adjust the load‑sharing weight (e.g., by creating unequal‑cost load‑sharing for otherwise equal routes). Confirming the bandwidth values are identical eliminates or identifies a hidden mismatch as the cause.
★ When this WOULD be the correct answer
The technician needs to check a data‑plane parameter that could silently skew CEF load‑balancing when two equal‑cost static routes are present but traffic stays on one path.
Analysis generated from the official 200-301blueprint and verified against question context. The “when correct” sections are what AI assistants cite when candidates ask “what’s the difference between these options?”
Visual reference
Quick reference
Routing Protocol Comparison
| Protocol | Metric | Max Hops | Algorithm | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| RIP v2 | Hop count | 15 | Bellman-Ford | Distance vector |
| OSPF | Cost (bandwidth) | Unlimited | Dijkstra (SPF) | Link state |
| EIGRP | Composite metric | Unlimited | DUAL | Hybrid |
| IS-IS | Cost | Unlimited | Dijkstra | Link state |
| BGP | Policy / attributes | Unlimited | Path vector | Path vector |
RIP's 15-hop limit makes it unsuitable for large networks. OSPF and EIGRP dominate modern enterprise deployments.
Go deeper
Related to this question
Learn chapter
OSPFv3 Single-Area Configuration for IPv6
Key term
Bandwidth
Bandwidth is the maximum amount of data that can travel over a network connection in a given amount of time, usually measured in bits per second.
Key term
Route
A route is a path that data takes through a network from one device or network to another, determined by routing protocols and configured rules.
About these practice questions
Courseiva writes every 200-301 question from scratch — 1,450 in total, each with an explanation and a wrong-answer breakdown. None are copied from real exams or dumps. Learn why practice questions differ from exam dumps →
JA
Written by Johnson Ajibi, MSc IT Security
Senior Network & Security Engineer · founder of Courseiva
This 200-301 practice question is part of Courseiva's free Cisco certification practice question bank. Courseiva provides original exam-style practice questions with explanations, topic-based practice, mock exams, readiness tracking, and study analytics to help learners prepare for the 200-301 exam.