mediumMultiple Choice
300-410 Practice Question: Is true regarding the use of prefix-lists versus…
Which of the following is true regarding the use of prefix-lists versus access-lists for route filtering?
⚠ Common exam trap
300-410 often tests the misconception that access-lists can match prefix length using 'ge' and 'le', confusing them with prefix-lists.
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
✓
Prefix-lists can match on both network address and prefix length, while access-lists match only on network address.
Prefix-lists are designed specifically for route filtering and can match both the network address and the prefix length (subnet mask) using the 'ge' (greater than or equal) and 'le' (less than or equal) keywords. Access-lists, when used for route filtering, can only match the network address portion of a route and cannot filter based on prefix length. This makes prefix-lists more precise and flexible for controlling routing updates.
Answer analysis
Option-by-option breakdown
For each option: why learners choose it and why it is or isn't the right answer here.
- ✗
Access-lists can match on prefix length using the 'ge' and 'le' keywords.
Why it's wrong here
Access-lists match on network address and wildcard mask only; the ge and le prefix-length operators belong to prefix-lists, which compare the mask length itself. The option is tempting because standard and extended ACLs do filter routes, but they cannot express a length range, so they fail this comparison.
- ✓
Prefix-lists can match on both network address and prefix length, while access-lists match only on network address.
Why this is correct
Prefix-lists use the ge and le operators to test both the network address and the prefix length of a route, permitting precise subnet-range filtering. Standard access-lists match only the network address, so they cannot distinguish between different prefix lengths.
- ✗
Access-lists are more efficient than prefix-lists for route filtering.
Why it's wrong here
Access-lists process entries sequentially and perform a full match on each, whereas prefix-lists use a more optimised, binary search-like mechanism for matching prefixes. Therefore, access-lists are generally less efficient for route filtering. This option is tempting because access-lists are widely used for packet filtering, where their sequential matching is acceptable and often necessary for granular control over individual packets based on various criteria beyond just IP prefixes.
- ✗
Prefix-lists can only be used with BGP, while access-lists can be used with any protocol.
Why it's wrong here
Prefix-lists are usable with any routing protocol that supports route filtering, including EIGRP and OSPF redistribution, so restricting them to BGP is false. The claim tempts because prefix-lists are most commonly deployed in BGP policy, yet that popularity reflects convention, not a protocol limitation.
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.