hardMultiple ChoiceObjective-mapped
300-410 Practice Question: A multi-router network uses PBR to steer traffic…
A multi-router network uses PBR to steer traffic from subnet 172.16.1.0/24 through a WAN link (next-hop 10.10.10.2). After a routing change, traffic from this subnet is being dropped. Router R1 shows: 'show route-map' indicates the route-map is applied, 'show ip policy' shows the policy on the interface, but 'debug ip policy' shows 'PBR: no route to next-hop 10.10.10.2'. 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 next-hop 10.10.10.2 is not reachable, and PBR drops packets when no route to the next-hop exists. Configure a fallback route or use 'set ip default next-hop'.
PBR requires the next-hop to be reachable via a route in the routing table. If the next-hop is not reachable (e.g., due to a routing change or a missing route), PBR will drop the packet unless a fallback is configured. In this case, the next-hop 10.10.10.2 is not reachable, so PBR drops the traffic. The solution is to either ensure the next-hop is reachable or configure a default route or fallback action.
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 next-hop 10.10.10.2 is not reachable, and PBR drops packets when no route to the next-hop exists. Configure a fallback route or use 'set ip default next-hop'.
Why this is correct
PBR drops packets if the set next-hop is not reachable. Using 'set ip default next-hop' allows PBR to use the routing table as a fallback if the next-hop is unreachable.
- ✗
The ACL in the route-map is incorrectly denying traffic from 172.16.1.0/24, causing PBR to not match the traffic.
Why it's wrong here
The debug output shows PBR is matching the traffic but cannot find a route to the next-hop, so ACL matching is not the issue.
- ✗
The interface where PBR is applied is in a different VRF, causing the next-hop to be unreachable.
Why it's wrong here
If the interface were in a different VRF, the PBR configuration would need to be VRF-aware. However, the debug output does not indicate a VRF mismatch, and the next-hop is simply not reachable.
- ✗
The next-hop 10.10.10.2 is reachable but the route-map has a 'match ip address' that is too specific, excluding some traffic.
Why it's wrong here
The debug output clearly states 'no route to next-hop', indicating the next-hop itself is not reachable, not that traffic is being excluded.
Visual reference
Go deeper
Related to this question
About these practice questions
One of 1,966 original 300-410 practice questions on Courseiva, each with a full explanation and wrong-answer analysis — not exam dumps or protected exam content. 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.