CCNP Practice Question: Runs the following command on Router R1: R1# show…

Answer analysis

Option-by-option breakdown

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

• ✗

  All routes have a feasible successor.

  Why it's wrong here

  A feasible successor in EIGRP must satisfy the feasibility condition: the reported distance (RD) from the next-hop router must be strictly less than the feasible distance (FD) to the destination. In this topology table, each route shows RD equal to FD, so the strict inequality fails, meaning no feasible successor exists for any route. Saying 'all routes have a feasible successor' is therefore the opposite of what the output reveals.

• ✗

  The routes are in Active state, meaning the router is querying for alternate paths.

  Why it's wrong here

  The topology table displayed uses the 'P' code to mark routes, which stands for Passive state in EIGRP's DUAL finite state machine. Passive means the router is not currently performing a route computation or querying neighbors for alternate paths; it is simply using the existing successor. Active state, indicated by 'A', would show that the router lost a successor and is actively sending queries to neighbors, but none of the routes here are in that condition.

• ✓

  Each route has exactly one successor and no feasible successor.

  Why this is correct

  Each destination in the output has exactly one successor as shown by the single 'via' entry on the first line of each topology entry. A feasible successor would require an alternate next-hop route with RD < FD, but here the RD equals the FD for every route, making the feasibility condition false. Therefore, exactly one successor and zero feasible successors is the correct interpretation of the output.

• ✗

  The router is using EIGRP stub routing.

  Why it's wrong here

  EIGRP stub routing is a feature that restricts a router's query propagation and is configured to prevent it from being used as a transit route for EIGRP-injected traffic. This configuration is not directly observable in a standard topology table display; it would be checked via commands like show ip eigrp neighbors detail or show running-config. The topology output here simply shows normal successor/FD relationships, not any indication of stub marking or query behavior, so claiming stub routing based on this output is unsupported.