hardMultiple ChoiceObjective-mapped
300-410 Practice Question: A large enterprise network is experiencing…
A large enterprise network is experiencing intermittent reachability from a specific subnet (10.1.1.0/24) to a critical server (192.168.10.10). Router R1 has PBR configured to forward traffic from 10.1.1.0/24 to next-hop 10.2.2.2, but traffic is also being load-balanced via the routing table to 10.3.3.3. Router R2 shows: 'show ip route 192.168.10.10' returns a route via 10.4.4.4, but 'show ip policy' on R1 shows the route-map is applied. What is the root cause?
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 route-map is missing the 'set ip next-hop verify-availability' command, causing PBR to forward traffic to an unreachable next-hop.
PBR uses a route-map to match traffic and set next-hop. If the route-map does not have a 'set ip next-hop verify-availability' command, PBR will forward traffic to the next-hop even if it is not reachable. In this scenario, the next-hop 10.2.2.2 is not reachable, but PBR still forwards traffic to it, causing intermittent reachability. The routing table load-balancing to 10.3.3.3 works, but PBR overrides it for matched traffic.
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 route-map is missing the 'set ip next-hop verify-availability' command, causing PBR to forward traffic to an unreachable next-hop.
Why this is correct
Without 'verify-availability', PBR does not check if the next-hop is reachable. Adding this command ensures PBR only uses the next-hop if it is reachable, falling back to the routing table otherwise.
- ✗
The ACL in the route-map is incorrectly matching traffic from 10.1.1.0/24, causing PBR to be applied to the wrong traffic.
Why it's wrong here
The ACL is correctly matching the subnet, as evidenced by the symptom. The issue is with next-hop reachability, not ACL matching.
- ✗
The routing table on R1 has a higher administrative distance for the route to 192.168.10.10 via 10.3.3.3, causing PBR to be ignored.
Why it's wrong here
PBR overrides the routing table for matched traffic, regardless of administrative distance. The routing table only applies if PBR is not configured or if the route-map does not match.
- ✗
The next-hop 10.2.2.2 is reachable but the path is congested, causing intermittent packet drops.
Why it's wrong here
The symptom is due to unreachability, not congestion. The 'verify-availability' command would still be needed to detect the unreachability.
Visual reference
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.