hardMultiple ChoiceObjective-mapped
300-410 Router R1 is configured with VRF-A and VRF-B Practice Question
Router R1 is configured with VRF-A and VRF-B. Route leaking is configured between them using route-targets. However, routes from VRF-A are appearing in VRF-B with incorrect next-hop addresses, causing traffic to be black-holed. R1 configuration: ip vrf VRF-A, rd 100:1, route-target both 100:1. ip vrf VRF-B, rd 200:2, route-target both 200:2. Additionally, a route-map is applied to the VRF-A export: route-map LEAK, set global. The route-map does not modify the next-hop. 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 route-map uses 'set global', which is intended for leaking to the global table, not between VRFs, causing incorrect next-hop.
When leaking routes between VRFs, the next-hop is typically the local router's interface IP in the source VRF. If the route-map does not set the next-hop to a reachable address in the destination VRF, the route may be installed with an unreachable next-hop. In this case, the route-map sets 'set global', which is used for leaking to the global table, not between VRFs. For VRF-to-VRF leaking, the route-map should not use 'set global' but rather rely on the default behavior. The 'set global' command causes the route to be leaked to the global table instead of VRF-B, or it may cause the next-hop to be set incorrectly. The root cause is that the route-map is misconfigured for VRF-to-VRF leaking.
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 uses 'set global', which is intended for leaking to the global table, not between VRFs, causing incorrect next-hop.
Why this is correct
Correct: 'set global' is for global table; for VRF-to-VRF, the route-map should not include that command.
- ✗
The route-targets must be the same for both VRFs for route leaking.
Why it's wrong here
Incorrect: Route-targets can be different; leaking is configured via import/export.
- ✗
The VRF names must be the same for route leaking.
Why it's wrong here
Incorrect: VRF names are local.
- ✗
The route-map should be applied to the VRF-B import instead.
Why it's wrong here
Incorrect: Export on VRF-A is correct for leaking to VRF-B.
Go deeper
Related to this question
About these practice questions
This 300-410 question is part of Courseiva's 1,966-question bank — original exam-style content with full explanations and wrong-answer analysis, never real exam questions or exam dumps. 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.