Question 296 of 2,152

EIGRP Troubleshooting →hardMultiple ChoiceObjective-mapped

Quick Answer

The answer is that the offset-list increased the metric from 100 to 150, which is still lower than the second router's metric of 200, so the second router still prefers the first router's route. This occurs because an offset-list applied outbound on the first router modifies the metric of the advertised route before it reaches the neighbor, but the second router performs a simple comparison of the received metric (150) against its own feasible successor metric (200) and selects the lower value. On the Cisco CCNP ENARSI 300-410 exam, this scenario tests your understanding of how offset-lists interact with EIGRP’s metric comparison logic, and a common trap is assuming any increase will flip the preference without calculating the final values. The search intent "eigrp offset-list metric increase insufficient" highlights that the increment must exceed the difference between the two metrics to change path selection. Memory tip: "Offset to overtake—your bump must break the gap."

300-410 EIGRP Troubleshooting Practice Question

This 300-410 practice question tests your understanding of eigrp troubleshooting. This is a configuration task: choose the command set that satisfies every stated requirement. Small differences — like 'secret' vs 'password' or 'transport input ssh' vs 'all' — change whether the answer is correct. After answering, compare your reasoning against the explanation and wrong-answer breakdown below. Once you have made your selection, read the full explanation to reinforce the concept and understand why each distractor is designed to mislead on exam day.

Two routers are configured with EIGRP and have a neighbor relationship. One router has a route to 192.168.1.0/24 with metric 100. The other router has a route to the same prefix with metric 200. An engineer configures an offset-list on the first router to increase the metric of 192.168.1.0/24 by 50, expecting the second router to prefer its own route. Unexpectedly, the second router still prefers the first router's route after the offset. Which is the most likely explanation?

Clue words in this question

Noticing these words before you look at the options changes how you read each choice.

Clue: "first"
Why it matters: Order matters here. You are being tested on which action comes before the others — not which action is generally useful.
Clue: "most likely"
Why it matters: Probability qualifier — the question wants the most probable cause or outcome, not a guaranteed one. Eliminate low-probability options.

Question 1hardmultiple choice

Study the full EIGRP explanation →

A
The offset-list increased the metric from 100 to 150, which is still lower than the second router's metric of 200, so the second router still prefers the first router's route.
The offset was insufficient to flip the preference; the second router's metric (200) is still higher than 150.
B
The offset-list must be applied inbound on the second router to increase the metric of the received route.
Why wrong: Inbound offset would also increase the metric, but the same logic applies; the metric would become 150 if applied inbound on the second router.
C
The offset-list command only affects feasible distance, not advertised distance, so the second router ignores it.
Why wrong: Offset-list affects the metric sent, which is used by the neighbor for FD calculation.
D
The second router has a higher administrative distance for the route, so it always prefers the first router's route.
Why wrong: Administrative distance is not mentioned; EIGRP uses metric for same protocol.

Full breakdown with real-world context →

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 increased the metric from 100 to 150, which is still lower than the second router's metric of 200, so the second router still prefers the first router's route.

The offset-list affects the metric of the route as advertised to the neighbor. However, if the offset-list is applied inbound on the second router, it increases the metric of the received route, making it less preferred. But if the offset-list is applied outbound on the first router, it increases the metric of the route sent to the second router. The second router then compares the received metric (150) with its own metric (200) and still prefers the lower metric (150). The engineer likely applied the offset-list outbound on the first router, but the increase was insufficient to make the second router's route better.

Key principle: OSPF neighbour adjacency depends on matching area, hello/dead timers, network type, and authentication — IP reachability alone is not enough.

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 increased the metric from 100 to 150, which is still lower than the second router's metric of 200, so the second router still prefers the first router's route.
Why this is correct
The offset was insufficient to flip the preference; the second router's metric (200) is still higher than 150.
Clue confirmation
The clue words "first", "most likely" in the question point toward this answer.
Related concept
OSPF neighbours must agree on key parameters.
✗
The offset-list must be applied inbound on the second router to increase the metric of the received route.
Why it's wrong here
Inbound offset would also increase the metric, but the same logic applies; the metric would become 150 if applied inbound on the second router.
✗
The offset-list command only affects feasible distance, not advertised distance, so the second router ignores it.
Why it's wrong here
Offset-list affects the metric sent, which is used by the neighbor for FD calculation.
✗
The second router has a higher administrative distance for the route, so it always prefers the first router's route.
Why it's wrong here
Administrative distance is not mentioned; EIGRP uses metric for same protocol.

Common exam traps

Common exam trap: OSPF can fail even when IP connectivity looks correct

OSPF neighbour formation depends on matching areas, timers, network type, authentication and passive-interface behaviour. Do not choose an answer only because the devices can ping.

Detailed technical explanation

How to think about this question

OSPF questions usually test the details that control adjacency and route selection. Read the neighbour state, area, router ID and interface configuration before deciding what is wrong.

KKey Concepts to Remember

OSPF neighbours must agree on key parameters.
Router ID selection can affect neighbour relationships and LSDB output.
OSPF cost influences the preferred path.
A route can appear in OSPF information but not become the installed route.

TExam Day Tips

Check area mismatch first when OSPF adjacency fails.
Review passive interfaces when a network is advertised but no neighbour forms.
Use show ip ospf neighbor and show ip route clues carefully.

Key takeaway

OSPF neighbour adjacency depends on matching area, hello/dead timers, network type, and authentication — IP reachability alone is not enough.

Real-world example

How this comes up in practice

A network engineer at a university connects two campus buildings via a fibre link. Both routers run OSPF, but no adjacency forms — even though both routers can ping each other. The engineer finds one router is in area 0 and the other in area 1. OSPF adjacency requires matching area numbers, hello/dead timers, and network type. IP reachability alone is not enough.

What to study next

Got this wrong? Here's your next step.

Review OSPF neighbour requirements — matching area type, hello and dead timers, network type, stub flags, and authentication. Study show ip ospf neighbor states (INIT, 2-WAY, FULL). Then practise related 300-410 OSPF questions on adjacency and route selection.

Related 300-410 practice-question pages

Use these pages to review the topic behind this question. This is how one missed question becomes focused revision.

Layer 3 Technologies practice questions

Practise 300-410 questions linked to Layer 3 Technologies.

EIGRP Troubleshooting practice questions

Practise 300-410 questions linked to EIGRP Troubleshooting.

OSPF Troubleshooting (v2/v3) practice questions

Practise 300-410 questions linked to OSPF Troubleshooting (v2/v3).

BGP Troubleshooting practice questions

Practise 300-410 questions linked to BGP Troubleshooting.

Route Redistribution practice questions

Practise 300-410 questions linked to Route Redistribution.

Policy-Based Routing (PBR) practice questions

Practise 300-410 questions linked to Policy-Based Routing (PBR).

VRF-Lite practice questions

Practise 300-410 questions linked to VRF-Lite.

Route Maps and Route Filtering practice questions

Practise 300-410 questions linked to Route Maps and Route Filtering.

Administrative Distance practice questions

Practise 300-410 questions linked to Administrative Distance.

Route Summarization practice questions

Practise 300-410 questions linked to Route Summarization.

Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) practice questions

Practise 300-410 questions linked to Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD).

VPN Technologies practice questions

Practise 300-410 questions linked to VPN Technologies.

Practice this exam

Start a free 300-410 practice session

Short sessions build daily habit. Longer sessions build exam-day stamina. Try a timed session to simulate real conditions.

10 questions 20 questions 30 questions 50 questions Timed 30

300-410 practice-test guide →Study guide →Browse all practice tests

FAQ

Questions learners often ask

What does this 300-410 question test?

EIGRP Troubleshooting — This question tests EIGRP Troubleshooting — OSPF neighbours must agree on key parameters..

What is the correct answer to this question?

The correct answer is: The offset-list increased the metric from 100 to 150, which is still lower than the second router's metric of 200, so the second router still prefers the first router's route. — The offset-list affects the metric of the route as advertised to the neighbor. However, if the offset-list is applied inbound on the second router, it increases the metric of the received route, making it less preferred. But if the offset-list is applied outbound on the first router, it increases the metric of the route sent to the second router. The second router then compares the received metric (150) with its own metric (200) and still prefers the lower metric (150). The engineer likely applied the offset-list outbound on the first router, but the increase was insufficient to make the second router's route better.

What should I do if I get this 300-410 question wrong?

Are there clue words in this question I should notice?

Yes — watch for: "first", "most likely". Order matters here. You are being tested on which action comes before the others — not which action is generally useful.

What is the key concept behind this question?

OSPF neighbours must agree on key parameters.

About these practice questions

Courseiva creates original exam-style practice questions with explanations and wrong-answer analysis. It does not publish real exam questions, exam dumps, or protected exam content. Learn why practice questions differ from exam dumps →

How Courseiva writes practice questions · Editorial policy

Keep practising

Question Discussion

Share a tip, memory trick, or ask about the reasoning behind this question. Do not post real exam questions, leaked content, braindumps, or copyrighted exam material. Comments are moderated and may be removed without notice.

Loading comments…

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.