CCNP Network Assurance Practice Question
Exhibit
Refer to the exhibit.
R1# show ip route
Codes: L - local, C - connected, S - static, R - RIP, M - mobile, B - BGP
D - EIGRP, EX - EIGRP external, O - OSPF, IA - OSPF inter area
N1 - OSPF NSSA external type 1, N2 - OSPF NSSA external type 2
E1 - OSPF external type 1, E2 - OSPF external type 2
i - IS-IS, su - IS-IS summary, L1 - IS-IS level-1, L2 - IS-IS level-2
ia - IS-IS inter area, * - candidate default, U - per-user static route
o - ODR, P - periodic downloaded static route, H - NHRP, l - LISP
a - application route
+ - replicated route, % - next hop override
Gateway of last resort is 10.0.0.2 to network 0.0.0.0
O E2 192.168.1.0/24 [110/20] via 10.0.0.2, 00:00:34, GigabitEthernet0/0
O E2 192.168.2.0/24 [110/20] via 10.0.0.2, 00:00:34, GigabitEthernet0/0
S* 0.0.0.0/0 [1/0] via 10.0.0.1Refer to the exhibit. An administrator needs to ensure that traffic to 192.168.1.0/24 is forwarded via a different path than traffic to 192.168.2.0/24, even though both routes are learned via OSPF with the same metric. Which action should the administrator take?
⚠ Common exam trap
Cisco often tests the misconception that policy-based routing (PBR) is the only way to force traffic to a different next-hop, when in fact a simple static route with a lower administrative distance can achieve the same result more efficiently and is a common technique for path selection without altering routing protocol metrics.
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
✓
Add a static route for 192.168.1.0/24 with a lower administrative distance than OSPF.
Adding a static route for 192.168.1.0/24 with a lower administrative distance (e.g., 1) than OSPF (default 110) forces the router to prefer the static route over the OSPF-learned route, even though the OSPF metric is the same. This allows traffic to 192.168.1.0/24 to use a different next-hop (e.g., 10.0.0.1) while traffic to 192.168.2.0/24 continues using the OSPF-learned path via 10.0.0.2, achieving the desired path differentiation without altering OSPF metrics or using complex PBR.
Answer analysis
Option-by-option breakdown
For each option: why learners choose it and why it is or isn't the right answer here.
- ✗
Configure policy-based routing to match 192.168.1.0/24 and set the next hop to 10.0.0.1.
Why it's wrong here
Configuring policy-based routing (PBR) would force traffic matching 192.168.1.0/24 to a specific next hop, effectively bypassing the OSPF routing table for that traffic. While this achieves a different forwarding path, it does not address the underlying issue of OSPF learning both routes with identical metrics, which could lead to undesirable load balancing or path selection for other traffic. PBR is typically employed when specific traffic flows require an exception to the standard routing table, such as for internet breakout or service chaining, rather than influencing the routing protocol's path determination itself.
- ✓
Add a static route for 192.168.1.0/24 with a lower administrative distance than OSPF.
Why this is correct
A static route to 192.168.1.0/24 with administrative distance 1 creates a more trustworthy entry than OSPF's default AD of 110, so the router prefers the static route for that exact prefix. This is the precise, surgical fix: it overrides OSPF only for this subnet while leaving all other OSPF-learned routes untouched, and it does not depend on the metrics of the two equal-cost OSPF paths.
- ✗
Use the 'distance ospf' command to change the OSPF administrative distance for all routes.
Why it's wrong here
The 'distance ospf' command globally changes the administrative distance for all OSPF routes (or for intra-area, inter-area, and external routes as a group), so it would alter the preferred path for every OSPF prefix, not just 192.168.1.0/24. This broad change can unexpectedly shift traffic for many other destinations and may introduce suboptimal path selection or routing instability. Since both routes to 192.168.1.0/24 are OSPF routes, changing OSPF's AD cannot selectively break the tie between them.
- ✗
Adjust the OSPF cost on the interface to 10.0.0.2.
Why it's wrong here
Adjusting the OSPF cost on the interface toward 10.0.0.2 changes the metric for all routes learned via that interface. If both 192.168.1.0/24 routes are advertised by the same neighbor (or learned over the same interface), the cost change applies equally to both, leaving them still equal-cost and load-balanced. Even if they come from different neighbors, modifying a single interface cost would only affect the route advertised over that interface, but the given scenario indicates both are via the same neighbor, so no differentiation occurs.
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.
About these practice questions
One of 1,923 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 →
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.