mediumMultiple Select
CCNP Practice Question: Which two statements about VRF configuration in…
Which two statements about VRF configuration in Cisco IOS-XE are true? (Choose two.)
⚠ Common exam trap
The trap is confusing VRF with VLANs or assuming MPLS is required. Candidates might think VRF is Layer 2 or that it automatically applies to all VLANs.
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
✓
A VRF instance maintains its own routing table, CEF table, and forwarding table.
Option A is correct because a VRF (Virtual Routing and Forwarding) instance creates a fully separate Layer 3 routing domain, maintaining its own RIB (routing table), its own CEF/FIB (forwarding table), and its own set of interfaces, which is exactly what provides traffic isolation between VRFs on the same physical router. Option B is correct because IOS-XE supports running routing protocols per VRF; OSPF is enabled inside a VRF by entering router ospf <process> vrf <vrf-name> (or by configuring the process under the VRF context), giving that VRF its own OSPF instance, LSDB, and adjacencies. Option C is not required: MPLS is a common transport for VRF traffic across a provider core (as in MPLS L3VPN), but a VRF works locally on a single router without MPLS enabled. Option D is wrong because VRFs are not automatically bound to VLANs; interface-to-VRF association is an explicit configuration (e.g., ip vrf forwarding <name> under the SVI), and VLANs are a Layer 2 construct independent of VRF membership. Option E is wrong because VRF is a Layer 3 isolation mechanism; Layer 2 isolation is provided by VLANs (or VRF-lite's Layer 3 separation over separate subinterfaces), not by VRF itself.
Answer analysis
Option-by-option breakdown
For each option: why learners choose it and why it is or isn't the right answer here.
- ✓
A VRF instance maintains its own routing table, CEF table, and forwarding table.
Why this is correct
Each VRF instance is a separate Layer 3 routing domain, so it holds its own RIB, Cisco Express Forwarding adjacency table and forwarding information base. This isolation satisfies the stem's requirement that VRFs keep traffic and routes distinct on shared hardware.
- ✓
VRF can be used with OSPF by configuring the OSPF process under the VRF context.
Why this is correct
IOS-XE runs OSPF per VRF by entering router configuration within the VRF context, so each instance builds separate adjacencies and link-state databases. This satisfies the stem's requirement that OSPF operate within a VRF rather than only in the global table.
- ✗
VRF requires MPLS to be enabled on the router.
Why it's wrong here
VRFs operate independently of MPLS; MPLS is only needed for label-based traffic separation across a provider core. A VRF can be configured and used locally with static routes or an IGP, so requiring MPLS would wrongly exclude standard IOS-XE VRF deployments.
- ✗
A VRF is automatically associated with all VLANs on a switch.
Why it's wrong here
VRFs bind to specific interfaces or VLAN SVIs, not automatically to every VLAN; association requires explicit configuration such as `vrf forwarding` under the SVI. It is tempting because VRF-lite deployments often map one VRF per VLAN, but that mapping is deliberate, not automatic, and unused VLANs remain in the global routing table.
- ✗
VRF is a Layer 2 isolation mechanism.
Why it's wrong here
VRF provides Layer 3 routing table isolation, not Layer 2 separation; VLANs and private VLANs handle Layer 2 segmentation. VRF would be the answer if the requirement were separating overlapping IP subnets across a routed infrastructure.
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
Courseiva writes every 350-401 question from scratch — 1,923 in total, each with an explanation and a wrong-answer breakdown. None are copied from real exams or dumps. Learn why practice questions differ from exam dumps →
JA
Written and reviewed by Johnson Ajibi, MSc IT Security
Senior Network & Security Engineer · founder of Courseiva
Last reviewed September 2026 · checked against the official Cisco exam blueprint
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.