hardMultiple Choice
300-410 Practice Question: Runs the following command to troubleshoot a…
A network engineer runs the following command to troubleshoot a VRF-Lite OSPF adjacency issue:
R1# debug ip ospf adj vrf CUSTOMER_C
Output: OSPF: 2 Way state received from 10.1.1.2 on interface GigabitEthernet0/1, address 10.1.1.2 OSPF: Neighbor 10.1.1.2 is eligible for DR election on interface GigabitEthernet0/1 OSPF: DR election: 10.1.1.1 (pri 1) is DR, 10.1.1.2 (pri 1) is BDR OSPF: Build router LSA for area 0, router ID 1.1.1.1, seq 0x80000001 OSPF: Neighbor 10.1.1.2 is FULL, state changed from LOADING to FULL
What does this output indicate?
⚠ Common exam trap
The trap is that candidates see '2 Way state received' and assume the adjacency is stuck in 2-Way, but the later line showing FULL indicates success; the 2-Way message is just part of the normal election sequence.
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 OSPF adjacency formed successfully, with 10.1.1.1 as DR and 10.1.1.2 as BDR.
The debug output shows the neighbor state changing from LOADING to FULL, which means the OSPF adjacency successfully completed database exchange and reached the FULL state. It also shows that 10.1.1.1 was elected DR and 10.1.1.2 was elected BDR, confirming a stable adjacency on the segment. The earlier 2-Way state is a normal part of the DR/BDR election process before the adjacency progresses to FULL.
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 OSPF adjacency failed because the neighbor remained in LOADING state.
Why it's wrong here
The final line shows the neighbour transitioned from LOADING to FULL, so the adjacency succeeded rather than failed. It is tempting because LOADING appears in the output, but that is the preceding state; the transition to FULL confirms database description and link-state request exchange completed successfully.
- ✓
The OSPF adjacency formed successfully, with 10.1.1.1 as DR and 10.1.1.2 as BDR.
Why this is correct
The debug output shows the neighbour reaching FULL state, confirming the adjacency formed successfully within VRF CUSTOMER_C. DR election completed with 10.1.1.1 as DR and 10.1.1.2 as BDR, satisfying the broadcast network requirement. The LOADING to FULL transition indicates database synchronisation finished, so no VRF-Lite OSPF fault remains.
- ✗
The OSPF adjacency formed but the router ID is missing, causing instability.
Why it's wrong here
The log shows the neighbour reached FULL, so the adjacency succeeded; no router ID is missing, since 1.1.1.1 and 1.1.1.2 are both present. It tempts because 2-Way and DR election lines appear, which do signal a stuck adjacency when neighbours never progress beyond 2-Way — the genuine fault this output rules out.
- ✗
The OSPF adjacency is stuck in 2-Way state due to mismatched area IDs.
Why it's wrong here
The log shows the neighbour reaching FULL after LOADING, so no area mismatch exists; area ID mismatch prevents adjacency progressing beyond INIT or EXSTART. It is tempting because 2-Way appears in the output, but that line records normal DR election eligibility, not a stuck state.
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
Courseiva writes every 300-410 question from scratch — 1,401 in total, each with an explanation and a wrong-answer breakdown. None are copied from real exams or dumps. 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.