mediumMultiple Choice
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 policy Interface Route-map
GigabitEthernet0/0 PBR-VOICE
R1# show route-map PBR-VOICE
route-map PBR-VOICE, permit, sequence 10 Match clauses:
ip address (access-lists): 130
Set clauses:
ip next-hop 192.168.10.1
Policy routing matches: 0 packets, 0 bytes
R1# show access-lists 130
Extended IP access list 130
10 permit udp any any range 16384 32767 R1# show interfaces GigabitEthernet0/0
GigabitEthernet0/0 is up, line protocol is up Internet address is 10.1.1.1/24
R1# show ip route 192.168.10.1
% Network not in routing table
Based on this output, what is the most likely problem?
⚠ Common exam trap
The trap is focusing on the 'Policy routing matches: 0 packets' counter and concluding the ACL is wrong — but the real issue is the missing route to the next-hop, which the 'show ip route' output explicitly reveals.
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 next-hop 192.168.10.1 is not reachable.
The route map PBR-VOICE sets the next-hop to 192.168.10.1, but 'show ip route 192.168.10.1' returns '% Network not in routing table,' meaning the router has no route to that next-hop address. PBR requires the next-hop to be reachable via the routing table (or be a directly connected interface); otherwise, the policy route cannot be installed and matched packets are dropped or fall through. This is the most likely problem, matching option B.
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 access list 130 is not matching any traffic.
Why it's wrong here
The ACL is not the fault: it permits UDP ports 16384-32767, and the zero match counter reflects that no traffic has hit the route map yet. The actual failure is the unreachable next-hop 192.168.10.1, absent from the routing table, so policy routing cannot forward matched packets.
- ✓
The next-hop 192.168.10.1 is not reachable.
Why this is correct
The route-map sets next-hop 192.168.10.1, but show ip route reports that network is absent from the routing table, so Policy Based Routing cannot resolve the next hop and no packets match. The ACL and interface are correctly configured; reachability of the next hop is the fault.
- ✗
The interface GigabitEthernet0/0 is down.
Why it's wrong here
GigabitEthernet0/0 is up, with line protocol up and a valid IP address, so interface state is not the fault. The genuine problem is that next-hop 192.168.10.1 has no route in the routing table, meaning policy-routed packets cannot be forwarded to it.
- ✗
The route map is missing a permit statement.
Why it's wrong here
A missing permit statement would cause the route map to deny matches, yet sequence 10 already permits and the ACL matches UDP 16384-32767. The real fault is that next-hop 192.168.10.1 is unreachable, so no packets are policy-routed. An implicit deny would matter only if no permit sequence existed.
Visual reference
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.