hardMultiple ChoiceObjective-mapped
300-410 Practice Question: An engineer configures EIGRP named mode with…
An engineer configures EIGRP named mode with `address-family ipv4 unicast autonomous-system 100` and applies an offset-list to a neighbor using `offset-list 1 out 1000` under the `af-interface` configuration. Unexpectedly, the offset-list does not affect the feasible distance (FD) as expected, but the advertised distance (AD) is increased. Which is the most likely explanation?
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 offset-list was applied under `af-interface` instead of `address-family`, so it modifies the AD sent to neighbors, not the FD.
In EIGRP named mode, offset-lists applied under the `af-interface` affect only the AD (the metric sent to neighbors), not the FD. To affect the FD, the offset-list must be applied under the `address-family` section using `offset-list <acl> {in|out} <metric>`. This is a subtle difference from classic mode where offset-lists always affect the FD for incoming updates.
Answer analysis
Option-by-option breakdown
For each option: why learners choose it and why it is or isn't the right answer here.
- ✓
The offset-list was applied under `af-interface` instead of `address-family`, so it modifies the AD sent to neighbors, not the FD.
Why this is correct
Named mode separates interface-specific and address-family-level offset-lists; only the latter adjusts FD.
- ✗
The offset-list command is not supported in named mode; it must be replaced with a route-map to adjust metrics.
Why it's wrong here
Offset-list is supported in named mode but with different placement.
- ✗
The offset-list was applied outbound, which only affects the AD; inbound offset-lists affect the FD.
Why it's wrong here
Both inbound and outbound offset-lists affect FD in classic mode, but in named mode the placement matters.
- ✗
The offset-list value of 1000 is too high and causes the route to be suppressed, so FD is not updated.
Why it's wrong here
High offset values do not suppress routes; they only increase metric.
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.
Go deeper
Related to this question
About these practice questions
Courseiva writes every 300-410 question from scratch — 1,966 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 by Johnson Ajibi, MSc IT Security
Senior Network & Security Engineer · founder of Courseiva
This 300-410 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 300-410 exam.