mediumMultiple Choice
300-410 Practice Question: Is troubleshooting a PBR (Policy-Based Routing)…
A network engineer is troubleshooting a PBR (Policy-Based Routing) issue on router R5. The engineer configured a route-map to set the next-hop for traffic from a specific source subnet. The route-map is applied to the incoming interface, but traffic from the source subnet is still being forwarded using the regular routing table. The engineer verifies that the ACL matches the traffic correctly. What is the most likely cause?
⚠ Common exam trap
The trap is that candidates focus on the ACL match (which the question says is fine) and overlook that a route-map without a valid 'set' action silently does nothing — the exam expects you to know that matching alone does not change forwarding behavior.
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 a 'set ip next-hop' command, or the next-hop is not reachable.
For PBR to actually change forwarding, the route-map must contain a 'set' clause (such as 'set ip next-hop' or 'set interface') that matches the ACL; if the set clause is missing or the specified next-hop is unreachable, the route-map matches but does nothing, and traffic falls back to the normal routing table. The scenario states the ACL matches correctly, so the failure is in the action, not the match.
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 a 'set ip next-hop' command, or the next-hop is not reachable.
Why this is correct
Policy-based routing only diverts traffic when the route-map both matches via the ACL and executes a set clause. Without a reachable 'set ip next-hop', the route-map permits the packet and normal destination-based forwarding via the routing table continues, exactly as observed.
- ✗
The route-map is applied outbound instead of inbound on the interface.
Why it's wrong here
Applying the route-map outbound on the incoming interface means it never evaluates ingress traffic, so local PBR policy is bypassed entirely. It is tempting because outbound PBR is valid for egress interfaces, and would be correct if the requirement were to policy-route traffic leaving the router rather than entering it.
- ✗
The ACL is using a standard ACL, which cannot match source subnet correctly.
Why it's wrong here
Standard ACLs match source addresses, so they can identify the source subnet; the failure stems from PBR requiring a route-map applied to the incoming interface with 'ip policy route-map', and the ACL merely classifies traffic. It tempts because ACL type affects matching, but standard ACLs suffice for source-based policy.
- ✗
The route-map has a 'set default interface' command that overrides the next-hop.
Why it's wrong here
A 'set default interface' only applies when no next-hop is specified; with an explicit next-hop set, it is ignored, so it cannot override the forwarding decision. It is tempting because default-interface commands do steer traffic when next-hop is absent, which would be correct if the route-map lacked a next-hop statement.
Visual reference
Go deeper
Related to this question
About these practice questions
One of 1,401 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 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.