mediumMultiple Choice
300-410 Practice Question: Runs the following command to troubleshoot an…
A network engineer runs the following command to troubleshoot an OSPF adjacency issue:
R1# debug ip ospf adj *Mar 1 00:12:34.567: OSPF-1 ADJ RtrA: Interface GigabitEthernet0/0 going Up *Mar 1 00:12:34.568: OSPF-1 ADJ RtrA: 2 Way Communication to 10.1.1.2 on GigabitEthernet0/0, state 2WAY *Mar 1 00:12:34.570: OSPF-1 ADJ RtrA: NBR 10.1.1.2: Our router ID 1.1.1.1, his router ID 2.2.2.2 *Mar 1 00:12:34.571: OSPF-1 ADJ RtrA: NBR 10.1.1.2: Neighbor is not DR, state 2WAY *Mar 1 00:12:34.572: OSPF-1 ADJ RtrA: NBR 10.1.1.2: DR is 10.1.1.2, BDR is 10.1.1.1 *Mar 1 00:12:34.573: OSPF-1 ADJ RtrA: NBR 10.1.1.2: Build the Start DBD *Mar 1 00:12:34.574: OSPF-1 ADJ RtrA: NBR 10.1.1.2: Master/Slave negotiation done *Mar 1 00:12:34.576: OSPF-1 ADJ RtrA: NBR 10.1.1.2: Exchange done, loading started *Mar 1 00:12:34.578: OSPF-1 ADJ RtrA: NBR 10.1.1.2: Loading done *Mar 1 00:12:34.580: OSPF-1 ADJ RtrA: NBR 10.1.1.2: Full
What does this output indicate?
⚠ Common exam trap
The trap is that candidates might misinterpret 'Neighbor is not DR' as a problem, but it is not; the adjacency can still form if the local router is DR or BDR. The exam tests understanding of OSPF states and DR/BDR roles.
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 adjacency formed successfully, and the neighbor is in Full state.
The debug output shows the OSPF adjacency progressing through states: Down, Init, 2-Way, ExStart, Exchange, Loading, and finally Full. The last line indicates 'Full', meaning the adjacency formed successfully. The neighbor is in Full state, which is the normal operational state for OSPF neighbors.
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 adjacency failed due to a mismatch in the DR election.
Why it's wrong here
The log shows DR is 10.1.1.2 and BDR is 10.1.1.1, with the neighbour correctly remaining in 2WAY as a non-DR, then progressing to Full. DR election completed without mismatch. This option is tempting because 2WAY on broadcast segments often signals an election problem, but here the adjacency reached Full.
- ✓
The adjacency formed successfully, and the neighbor is in Full state.
Why this is correct
The debug trace shows the neighbour progressing through 2WAY, Exchange, Loading and finally Full, confirming the OSPF adjacency completed successfully. The stem's troubleshooting goal is satisfied: no mismatch, area or MTU fault blocked the exchange, so the routers now share a synchronised link-state database.
- ✗
The adjacency is stuck in Exstart state due to MTU mismatch.
Why it's wrong here
The log shows Master/Slave negotiation done, Exchange done and Loading done, reaching Full, so no MTU mismatch stalled the exchange. MTU mismatch is tempting because it classically freezes neighbours in Exstart/Exchange, but this output progressed past those states to Full.
- ✗
The neighbor is not the DR, so the adjacency will not form.
Why it's wrong here
A non-DR neighbour on a broadcast segment still forms a Full adjacency with the DR and BDR; the log confirms Full was reached. This is tempting because 2WAY with a non-DR looks like a failure, but 2WAY is the normal steady state between DROthers, not a barrier to adjacency.
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
This 300-410 question is part of Courseiva's 1,401-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 and reviewed by Johnson Ajibi, MSc IT Security
Senior Network & Security Engineer · founder of Courseiva
Last reviewed September 2026 · checked against the official Cisco exam blueprint
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.