CCNP Virtualization Practice Question

Answer analysis

Option-by-option breakdown

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

• ✓

  Assign the VRF to the appropriate interfaces and configure a separate routing protocol instance within each VRF.

  Why this is correct

  VRF-Lite isolates routing by binding interfaces to a VRF and running an independent routing process per VRF. Without a routing instance inside the VRF, the router has no routes for that VRF, and without interface binding, traffic uses the global table. This combination provides the required isolation on a single device.

• ✗

  Enable MPLS LDP on all interfaces and redistribute the global routing table into each VRF.

  Why it's wrong here

  MPLS LDP is used for label distribution in service provider networks and does not provide VRF isolation on a single router. Redistributing the global table into each VRF would actually leak routes, violating the isolation requirement. VRF-Lite does not require MPLS or LDP.

• ✗

  Configure a single OSPF process and use different area IDs for each department.

  Why it's wrong here

  OSPF areas are used for hierarchical routing within one routing table, not for creating separate routing tables. Different area IDs would still share the same RIB and could not support overlapping IP addressing. Separate VRFs with independent routing processes are required for full isolation.

• ✗

  Associate each VRF with a unique route distinguisher (RD) and route target (RT) in the BGP configuration.

  Why it's wrong here

  RDs and RTs are used with MPLS L3VPN or EVPN to distinguish and propagate routes between VRFs across a provider network. In a VRF-Lite deployment on a single router, there is no MP-BGP VPNv4 address family, so RDs and RTs are not required to keep the local VRFs isolated; interface assignment alone achieves separation.