hardMultiple ChoiceObjective-mapped
300-410 Practice Question: Two routers are configured with EIGRP and have a…
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?
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.
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.
- ✗
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.
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
This 300-410 question is part of Courseiva's 1,966-question bank — original exam-style content with full explanations and wrong-answer analysis, never real exam questions or exam 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.