CCNA Hsrp Questions

A missing virtual IP on one router does not cause both to be Active; the router without the virtual IP cannot claim the Active role for that address.

A group number mismatch does not cause both routers to appear as Active for the same virtual IP; they would be in separate groups.

Equal priority does not lead to multiple Active routers; HSRP uses the interface IP address as a tiebreaker to elect a single Active router.

HSRP tie-breaking uses the highest IP address on the HSRP interface, not the MAC address. The MAC address is used for virtual MAC assignment but does not influence election.

Preemption is disabled by default in HSRP; it must be explicitly configured with the 'standby preempt' command. Without preemption, a higher priority router will not take over active role from a lower priority router that is already active.

The standby router is the router with the second-highest priority, not the lowest. The lowest priority router would only become standby if all other routers fail, as it is the least preferred.

Removing the track command would prevent R1 from decrementing priority when G0/1 fails, violating the requirement to track the interface.

Configuring preempt on R2 might allow it to take over, but the task only asks to fix R1; the primary issue is the virtual IP mismatch on R1.

Setting priority to 100 (the default) without preempt? Actually, R1 already has preempt, but with equal priority, the highest IP wins, which might be R2, so R1 might not become active. Increasing priority to 110 is required.

The priority value is higher than the default, which would make R1 active instead of standby.

The decrement value does not match the required 20; it is 30.

The tracked interface is wrong; it should be GigabitEthernet0/1, not GigabitEthernet0/0.

Preemption is not needed because the current Active router already has the higher priority (110 vs 100). Preemption only becomes relevant when a higher-priority router recovers after a failure and needs to reclaim the Active role. The issue here is routing, not HSRP state stability.

The virtual MAC address is automatically derived from the HSRP group number and is the same for both routers when they are in the same group. R2's local virtual MAC is different because it is used only when R2 becomes Active. The mismatch in the output is normal and does not affect connectivity.

The hello and hold timers are consistent (3 sec hello, 10 sec hold) and are not causing any issues. Adjusting timers would not fix the routing problem. The root cause is the lack of a default route on the Active router.

Configuring different priorities (150 and 50) would force the router with priority 150 to become active regardless of IP address, contradicting the requirement to use the highest IPv4 address for election. HSRP uses priority as the primary criterion; only when priorities are equal does the highest IP address break the tie.

The command 'standby 1 priority 100' is already implied by setting priority 100; it does not enable preemption. With equal priority and no preempt, both routers will remain in standby state indefinitely because HSRP cannot determine an active router without a tiebreaker or preemption. The active router election requires either a priority difference or preempt to resolve the tie.

Configuring different priorities (100 and 50) would make the router with priority 100 active regardless of IP address, which violates the requirement to use the highest IPv4 address for election. The requirement explicitly states that priorities must remain equal so that the highest IP address determines the active router.

Layer 2 switching loops are prevented by Spanning Tree Protocol (STP), not by HSRP. HSRP operates at Layer 3 to provide default gateway redundancy, not loop prevention.

Duplicate MAC addresses on trunks are typically caused by misconfigurations or bridging loops, not by HSRP. HSRP uses a virtual MAC address that is unique and does not cause duplication issues.

Wireless interference is a physical layer issue related to radio frequency signals, not something HSRP addresses. HSRP is a Layer 3 redundancy protocol for routers.

This option lacks 'standby 11 preempt', so R1 will not preempt for group 11, failing to resolve the active-active tie.

This option omits 'standby 10 preempt', so R1 will not preempt for group 10 as required.

This option uses the incorrect virtual IP 203.0.113.1 for group 11, which does not match the required 203.0.113.254.

HSRP election uses priority as the primary tie-breaker; equal priority leads to comparison of primary IP addresses, which may not favor R1.

The virtual IP address must be consistent across all HSRP routers and match the configured gateway; a mismatch prevents proper operation.

Without tracking, R1's priority remains unchanged even if the uplink fails, so R1 would remain active despite losing connectivity, causing traffic black-holing.

The output shows R2 is Active in its own group (20); priority only affects role election within the same group. The real problem is separate group numbers.

With mismatched authentication, the state would not be Active. The exhibit clearly shows Active on both routers, so authentication is not the cause.

Version mismatch would not change the displayed group number; the group number discrepancy is the direct evidence shown in the exhibit.

The track command is missing the decrement value; without it, the router will not adjust its priority when the interface fails.

The preempt command is missing; without preempt, a router with higher priority cannot take over the active role.

The track command uses a decrement of 10 instead of the required 20, so the priority drop is incorrect.

Preempt is not already enabled—otherwise both routers would not show as active. Failing to enable preempt leaves the split‑brain condition unresolved.

The virtual IP 192.168.1.254 is correctly assigned to the HSRP group; changing it would replace the default gateway for all hosts, breaking connectivity.

Removing tracking from R2 is irrelevant; the problem is R1's missing preempt and low priority, not R2's configuration. Both routers showing active is not caused by tracking on R2.

The virtual IP address is wrong; it should be 192.168.100.1, not 192.168.100.254.

Priority must be higher than the default (100) to ensure R1 becomes the active router; 110 is required.

Preempt is required to allow R1 to reclaim the active role when its priority becomes higher again after a failure.

Option A incorrectly states that HSRP prevents duplicate MAC addresses on a LAN. Duplicate MAC address prevention is a function of Layer 2 protocols and network design, not HSRP, which operates at Layer 3 to provide gateway redundancy.

Option C incorrectly claims that HSRP replaces Spanning Tree Protocol (STP). STP prevents Layer 2 switching loops, while HSRP provides Layer 3 gateway redundancy; they serve distinct purposes and coexist in networks.

Option D incorrectly suggests that HSRP encrypts traffic between users and the default gateway. HSRP does not provide encryption; it only manages gateway availability and failover.

This describes a different mechanism (e.g., VRRP uses IP address as a tiebreaker only after priority).

The range is 0–255, not 0–100.

Preemption is not a default behavior.

Priority 0 is a special value, not the normal standby priority.

The decrement value of 10 does not cause R1's priority to drop below R2's default priority of 100 (assuming R1 starts at 100, it becomes 90, still above R2's 100? Actually 90 < 100, but without preempt on R2, R2 won't become active. The main error is missing preempt on R2 and insufficient decrement to ensure R2 takes over.

Missing preempt on R2 prevents R1 from becoming active again after a failure, which violates the requirement that R1 should be active when its interface is up.

The virtual IP is not corrected to 192.168.10.1; it stays at 192.168.10.254, which is not the correct gateway address for the subnet.

This would break the HSRP relationship entirely, not fix the priority issue.

Preemption is not the cause; it is actually desired to allow a higher-priority router to take over.

This does not address the priority mismatch and could worsen convergence time.

The specific factual error is that 'decrement' is not a valid keyword in the standby track command. The decrement value is specified directly after the interface.

The specific factual error is that 'preempt delay' is not the correct way to configure tracking. Tracking is done with the 'standby track' command, and the decrement value must be specified.

The specific factual error is that 'priority' is not a valid keyword in the standby track command. The decrement value is specified directly after the interface.

The virtual IP address is wrong; it should be 192.168.1.1, not 192.168.1.254.

The decrement value is 10 instead of the required 15.

The priority is not increased; it remains at the default 100, so R1 may not become the Active router.