hardMultiple 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 route summary IP routing table maximum-paths: 32 IP routing table has 15 routes, using 900 bytes of memory
Number of prefixes: /8: 1, /16: 2, /20: 3, /24: 9 Route types: Connected: 4, Static: 1, OSPF: 10 Route sources: OSPF: 10, Connected: 4, Static: 1
Based on this output, what is a potential issue regarding route summarization?
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
✓
There are too many /24 prefixes, suggesting poor summarization.
The routing table has many /24 prefixes (9), indicating that route summarization is not being used effectively, leading to a larger routing table.
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 routing table is too small.
Why it's wrong here
Fifteen routes using 900 bytes is nowhere near a capacity constraint, so table size is irrelevant to summarisation. It is tempting because a small table can indicate missing aggregation, yet the actual signal here is nine /24 prefixes that could be summarised into fewer, longer prefixes.
- ✓
There are too many /24 prefixes, suggesting poor summarization.
Why this is correct
Nine /24 prefixes dominate the table, each advertised individually rather than aggregated into larger blocks. This proliferation of small classless entries signals weak summarisation, since contiguous subnets could be combined into fewer, shorter-prefix routes, reducing table size and update churn.
- ✗
There are too many OSPF routes.
Why it's wrong here
Ten OSPF routes is a modest count and OSPF itself is not the summarisation problem; the issue lies in the specific prefix lengths advertised. It is tempting because OSPF external routes often resist summarisation, but nothing in the output shows unsummarisable type-5 LSAs.
- ✗
The routing table is empty.
Why it's wrong here
The table holds 15 routes, so it is plainly not empty; the summarisation concern is the nine unaggregated /24 entries. It is tempting because an empty table would explain missing routes, but the output contradicts that reading outright.
Visual reference
Quick reference
Routing Protocol Comparison
| Protocol | Metric | Max Hops | Algorithm | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| RIP v2 | Hop count | 15 | Bellman-Ford | Distance vector |
| OSPF | Cost (bandwidth) | Unlimited | Dijkstra (SPF) | Link state |
| EIGRP | Composite metric | Unlimited | DUAL | Hybrid |
| IS-IS | Cost | Unlimited | Dijkstra | Link state |
| BGP | Policy / attributes | Unlimited | Path vector | Path vector |
RIP's 15-hop limit makes it unsuitable for large networks. OSPF and EIGRP dominate modern enterprise deployments.
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 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.