hardMultiple ChoiceObjective-mapped
300-410 Practice Question: An engineer configured IP SLA 20 to monitor the…
An engineer configured IP SLA 20 to monitor the reachability of a next-hop router (192.168.1.1) using UDP jitter probes. The goal is to use the IP SLA with a track object to influence EIGRP route selection. However, the EIGRP route is not being affected by the IP SLA state. The engineer verifies that the IP SLA is 'Active' and the track object shows 'Up'. What is the most likely misconfiguration?
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 track object is not configured to influence the EIGRP route; EIGRP does not support direct tracking of IP SLA for route metrics.
EIGRP does not natively react to IP SLA track objects unless the route is redistributed or a static route with tracking is used. The engineer likely expected EIGRP to automatically adjust metric based on IP SLA, which is not supported.
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 IP SLA probe type (UDP jitter) is not supported for tracking EIGRP routes.
Why it's wrong here
UDP jitter is supported for IP SLA; the probe type is not the issue.
- ✓
The track object is not configured to influence the EIGRP route; EIGRP does not support direct tracking of IP SLA for route metrics.
Why this is correct
EIGRP does not have a mechanism to directly track IP SLA states. The engineer must use a tracked static route or policy-based routing to influence traffic.
- ✗
The EIGRP route has a higher administrative distance than the tracked route.
Why it's wrong here
Administrative distance is not related to IP SLA tracking; the route is still present but not affected by the track state.
- ✗
The IP SLA threshold is set too low, causing flapping.
Why it's wrong here
The track object shows 'Up', so the threshold is not causing flapping.
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
One of 1,966 original 300-410 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 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.