hardMultiple ChoiceObjective-mapped
300-410 Practice Question: Runs the following command on Router R1: R1# show…
A network engineer runs the following command on Router R1:
R1# show ip ospf neighbor detail Neighbor 10.1.1.4, interface address 192.168.14.4
In the area 0 via interface GigabitEthernet0/2
Neighbor priority is 1, State is 2WAY, 2 state changes
DR is 10.1.1.1, BDR is 10.1.1.4 Options is 0x12 (L L S R) Dead timer due in 00:00:38
Neighbor is up for 00:05:22
Index 1/1/1, retransmission queue length 0, number of retransmission 0 First 0x0(0)/0x0(0) Next 0x0(0)/0x0(0) Last retransmission scan length is 0, time is 0 msec Last retransmission scan time is 0 msec
Based on this output, what is the problem?
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 neighbor is in 2WAY state, meaning the adjacency is not fully established.
The neighbor state is 2WAY, not FULL. This indicates that the neighbor relationship has not progressed to full adjacency. On a broadcast network, routers in 2WAY state have exchanged hello packets but have not completed database exchange. This could be due to mismatched MTU, authentication, or other issues, but the key observation is that the state is not FULL.
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 neighbor is in 2WAY state, meaning the adjacency is not fully established.
Why this is correct
2WAY state indicates that the routers have seen each other's hello packets but have not exchanged LSAs. FULL is required for complete adjacency.
- ✗
Router R1 is the DR and the neighbor is the BDR, so the state is correct.
Why it's wrong here
Even if R1 is DR and neighbor is BDR, they should still form a FULL adjacency, not 2WAY.
- ✗
The dead timer is about to expire, causing the neighbor to go down.
Why it's wrong here
Dead timer is 00:00:38, which is not near zero.
- ✗
The neighbor has a lower priority than R1, so it remains in 2WAY.
Why it's wrong here
Priority does not affect the state progression beyond 2WAY; all routers should go to FULL with DR/BDR.
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
Courseiva writes every 300-410 question from scratch — 1,966 in total, each with an explanation and a wrong-answer breakdown. None are copied from real exams or 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.