The answer is that mutual redistribution between OSPF and EIGRP without any filtering creates a routing loop, as seen when R1 redistributes OSPF into EIGRP and then EIGRP back into OSPF, causing the same route to be re-advertised in a feedback cycle. This occurs because neither protocol has a mechanism to distinguish between a route’s origin and a redistributed copy, so R2 learns 192.168.1.0/24 via OSPF with an E1 metric of 20—indicating it was redistributed twice—and then sends traffic back toward R1, which may forward it via the default route, completing the loop. On the Cisco CCNP ENARSI 300-410 exam, this scenario tests your understanding of redistribution pitfalls and the need for route tagging with distribute-lists or route-maps to break the cycle; a common trap is assuming administrative distance alone prevents loops, but it does not. Remember the memory tip: “Tag it or bag it”—always tag redistributed routes and filter them to prevent feedback loops.
300-410 OSPF Troubleshooting (v2/v3) Practice Question
This 300-410 practice question tests your understanding of ospf troubleshooting (v2/v3). Examine the command output carefully: the correct answer depends on what the output actually shows, not on general recall alone. 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.
A network engineer notices that routes redistributed from EIGRP into OSPF are causing routing loops. Router R1 has the following relevant configuration: router eigrp 100 redistribute ospf 1 metric 10000 100 255 1 1500 router ospf 1 redistribute eigrp 100 subnets metric-type 1 Router R2 shows: show ip route 192.168.1.0 Routing entry for 192.168.1.0/24 Known via "ospf 1", distance 110, metric 20, type E1 Last update from 10.1.1.1, 00:01:30 ago Also, R2 has a default route via R1. What is the root cause?
Answer the question above first, then reveal the full breakdown to understand why each option is right or wrong.
Correct answer & explanation
✓
Mutual redistribution without filtering causes a routing loop; apply distribute-list or route-map with tags.
The mutual redistribution between EIGRP and OSPF without route filtering can cause a routing loop. R1 redistributes OSPF into EIGRP, and EIGRP back into OSPF, creating a feedback loop. The E1 metric of 20 suggests the route was redistributed twice. The correct fix is to implement route tagging and filtering to prevent loop.
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.
✓
Mutual redistribution without filtering causes a routing loop; apply distribute-list or route-map with tags.
Why this is correct
Without filtering, routes are redistributed back and forth, creating loops. Tags and filters break the cycle.
The subnets keyword is missing in the redistribute command for OSPF.
Why it's wrong here
The subnets keyword is present; missing it would cause classful redistribution, not loops.
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.
Trap categories for this question
Keyword trap
The subnets keyword is present; missing it would cause classful redistribution, not loops.
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.
Related glossary terms
Concepts from this question explained
These glossary pages explain the core terms tested in this 300-410 question in full detail.
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.
OSPF Troubleshooting (v2/v3) — This question tests OSPF Troubleshooting (v2/v3) — OSPF neighbours must agree on key parameters..
What is the correct answer to this question?
The correct answer is: Mutual redistribution without filtering causes a routing loop; apply distribute-list or route-map with tags. — The mutual redistribution between EIGRP and OSPF without route filtering can cause a routing loop. R1 redistributes OSPF into EIGRP, and EIGRP back into OSPF, creating a feedback loop. The E1 metric of 20 suggests the route was redistributed twice. The correct fix is to implement route tagging and filtering to prevent loop.
What should I do if I get this 300-410 question wrong?
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.
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 →
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.
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.
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.
Sign in to join the discussion.