Courseiva
VirtualizationhardMultiple ChoiceObjective-mapped

CCNP Virtualization Practice Question

Exhibit

Refer to the exhibit.

CEF table snippet:
Prefix          Next Hop     Interface
10.1.1.0/24     192.168.1.2  Ethernet0/0
10.2.2.0/24     192.168.2.2  Ethernet0/1

CEF table after VRF configuration:
VRF: TENANT_A
Prefix          Next Hop     Interface
10.1.1.0/24     192.168.1.2  Ethernet0/0.100
10.2.2.0/24     192.168.2.2  Ethernet0/1.200

A network engineer configured VRF TENANT_A and moved the subinterfaces into the VRF. After the change, the CEF table shows the prefixes but the next-hop addresses are unreachable. What is the most likely cause?

⚠ Common exam trap

Cisco often tests the concept that VRF creates a completely isolated routing table, and the trap here is that candidates assume CEF showing the prefix means the route is fully functional, overlooking that the next-hop must also be in the same VRF.

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

The next-hop IP addresses are in the global routing table, not in the VRF.

When subinterfaces are moved into a VRF, the CEF table for that VRF will contain the learned prefixes, but the next-hop addresses must also be reachable within the same VRF. If the next-hop IP addresses reside in the global routing table instead of the VRF, the VRF will have no route to those next hops, causing them to be marked as unreachable. This is a common misconfiguration where the next-hop adjacency is not established within the VRF context.

Answer analysis

Option-by-option breakdown

For each option: why learners choose it and why it is or isn't the right answer here.

  • LISP is not configured to map the virtual network.

    Why it's wrong here

    Not relevant to this scenario.

  • The next-hop IP addresses are in the global routing table, not in the VRF.

    Why this is correct

    Next-hops must be in the same VRF to be reachable.

  • OSPF is not redistributing the routes into the VRF.

    Why it's wrong here

    Redistribution is not the issue; the next-hop is unreachable.

  • The physical interface is not configured as a trunk.

    Why it's wrong here

    Subinterfaces work on access ports as well.

About these practice questions

One of 1,175 original 350-401 practice questions on Courseiva, each with a full explanation and wrong-answer analysis — not exam dumps or protected exam content. Learn why practice questions differ from exam dumps →

How Courseiva writes practice questions · Editorial policy

JA

Written by Johnson Ajibi, MSc IT Security

Senior Network & Security Engineer · founder of Courseiva

This 350-401 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 350-401 exam.