mediumMultiple Choice
300-410 Practice Question: Runs the following command to verify MPLS LDP…
A network engineer runs the following command to verify MPLS LDP route filtering:
R1# show mpls ldp bindings 192.168.10.0 255.255.255.0
lib entry: 192.168.10.0/24, rev 6 local binding: label: 21 remote binding: lsr: 2.2.2.2:0, label: 22 remote binding: lsr: 3.3.3.3:0, label: 23
What does this output indicate?
⚠ Common exam trap
300-410 often tests the misconception that any prefix in the LIB output implies it is being forwarded; the trap is that LIB entries can exist without being installed in the LFIB if the next-hop or label binding is missing.
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 prefix 192.168.10.0/24 has a local label of 21 and remote labels from two neighbors.
The output shows a local binding with label 21 for 192.168.10.0/24 and two remote bindings from LSRs 2.2.2.2:0 (label 22) and 3.3.3.3:0 (label 23). This confirms the prefix has a local label assigned and remote labels learned from two LDP neighbors, indicating active LDP sessions with both peers.
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 prefix 192.168.10.0/24 has a local label of 21 and remote labels from two neighbors.
Why this is correct
The output confirms LDP has assigned local label 21 to 192.168.10.0/24 and received remote bindings 22 and 23 from neighbours 2.2.2.2 and 3.3.3.3, satisfying the verification requirement that both local and remote label mappings exist for the prefix.
- ✗
The prefix 192.168.10.0/24 is being filtered by a route-map.
Why it's wrong here
Filtered prefixes produce no LIB entry or remote bindings, yet this output shows a local label plus two remote bindings, so no route-map is suppressing it. It is tempting because LDP route filtering is configured with route-maps, but filtering would remove the bindings this command displays.
- ✗
The LDP session with 2.2.2.2 is down.
Why it's wrong here
Remote bindings from lsr 2.2.2.2:0 are present, which requires an operational LDP session to that peer, so the session is up. It is tempting because a down session removes remote bindings, but the output shows 2.2.2.2 advertising label 22 successfully.
- ✗
The prefix 192.168.10.0/24 is not in the routing table.
Why it's wrong here
The presence of local and remote label bindings proves the prefix exists in the LIB and was learned via LDP, so it cannot be absent from the routing table. It is tempting because a missing route would prevent local label allocation, but that would show no local binding rather than the bindings displayed.
Go deeper
Related to this question
Learn chapter
Device Management and Network Monitoring (SNMP, Syslog, NetFlow)
Key term
LDP Protocol
LDP, or Label Distribution Protocol, is a protocol that routers use to automatically exchange labels that enable MPLS (Multiprotocol Label Switching) to create fast, efficient paths for data packets across a network.
Key term
MPLS Label Distribution
MPLS Label Distribution is the process by which routers exchange labels that tell them how to forward packets across a network without looking at the IP address each time.
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.