hardMultiple ChoiceObjective-mapped
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?
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 ip ospf adj vrf' command shows OSPF adjacency state changes for a specific VRF. The output shows a successful OSPF adjacency formation: the neighbor transitioned through 2-Way, DR election, and reached FULL state. The router with IP 10.1.1.1 became the DR, and 10.1.1.2 became the BDR.
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
Incorrect. The neighbor changed from LOADING to FULL, indicating success.
- ✓
The OSPF adjacency formed successfully, with 10.1.1.1 as DR and 10.1.1.2 as BDR.
Why this is correct
Correct. The debug shows FULL state and DR/BDR election results.
- ✗
The OSPF adjacency formed but the router ID is missing, causing instability.
Why it's wrong here
Incorrect. The router ID 1.1.1.1 is shown in the build router LSA message.
- ✗
The OSPF adjacency is stuck in 2-Way state due to mismatched area IDs.
Why it's wrong here
Incorrect. The debug shows transition from 2-Way to DR election and then FULL.
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
Learn chapter
Introduction to ENARSI Exam and Network Fundamentals
Key term
MPLS Layer 3 VPN
A technology that uses Multiprotocol Label Switching to create secure, scalable virtual private networks that connect multiple sites at the network layer, where the service provider manages routing between customer sites.
About these practice questions
Courseiva writes every 300-410 question from scratch — 1,966 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 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.