Question 2,092 of 2,152
SNMP TroubleshootinghardMultiple ChoiceObjective-mapped

Root Cause Analysis of Intermittent SNMP Polling Failures

This 300-410 practice question tests your understanding of snmp troubleshooting. The scenario asks you to isolate a root cause — eliminate options that address a different problem before choosing. After answering, compare your reasoning against the explanation and wrong-answer breakdown below. Once you have made your selection, read the full explanation to reinforce the concept and understand why each distractor is designed to mislead on exam day.

A large enterprise network is experiencing intermittent SNMP polling failures from the NMS to router R2. R1 and R2 are connected via a serial link running OSPF. R1 has the following relevant configuration: snmp-server community public RO, snmp-server community private RW, snmp-server trap-source Loopback0, snmp-server enable traps ospf. R2 shows: debug ip packet shows packets from NMS (10.1.1.100) to R2's Loopback0 (10.2.2.2) being dropped with 'access-list violation'. No ACL is applied to any interface on R2. What is the root cause?

Quick Answer

The answer is an ACL applied to the SNMP community string that does not permit the NMS IP address. This is correct because the debug output on R2 explicitly shows packets being dropped with an "access-list violation," yet no ACL is applied to any interface. When an SNMP community string is configured with an optional ACL, that ACL filters incoming SNMP requests at the application layer before the router processes them; if the NMS IP is not permitted, the router silently drops the packets, mimicking an interface ACL violation. On the Cisco CCNP ENARSI 300-410 exam, this scenario tests your ability to differentiate between interface ACLs, CoPP policies, and SNMP community ACLs during root cause analysis of intermittent SNMP polling failures. A common trap is to assume a missing interface ACL means no filtering exists, but SNMP community ACLs operate independently. Memory tip: "SNMP community ACLs are invisible gatekeepers—if the NMS can't ping but debug shows ACL drops, check the community string's access-list first."

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

An ACL is applied to the SNMP community string that does not permit the NMS IP address.

The debug output on R2 shows packets from the NMS (10.1.1.100) to R2's Loopback0 (10.2.2.2) being dropped with 'access-list violation'. Since no ACL is applied to any interface on R2, the only remaining ACL that could cause this is an SNMP community ACL. The SNMP community string 'public' or 'private' can have an optional ACL applied via the 'snmp-server community <string> [view <view-name>] [ro|rw] [acl-number]' command. If that ACL does not permit the NMS IP address (10.1.1.100), the router will silently drop SNMP packets from that source, even though no interface ACL exists. This matches the symptom exactly.

Key principle: Answer the scenario, not the keyword: identify the specific constraint before choosing the most familiar-sounding option.

Answer analysis

Option-by-option breakdown

For each option: why learners choose it and why it is or isn't the right answer here.

  • An ACL is applied to the SNMP community string that does not permit the NMS IP address.

    Why this is correct

    The snmp-server community command can have an optional ACL. If configured, it filters SNMP access. The debug shows ACL violation, so this is the direct cause.

    Related concept

    Read the scenario before looking for a memorised answer.

  • OSPF network type mismatch between R1 and R2 causes routing blackhole.

    Why it's wrong here

    OSPF network type mismatch can cause adjacency issues, but the symptom is SNMP polling failure, not routing loss. Debug shows ACL violation, not routing.

  • The NMS is using SNMPv3 with incorrect credentials, causing authentication failure.

    Why it's wrong here

    The debug shows 'access-list violation', not authentication failure. SNMPv3 authentication would show different debug messages.

  • R2's loopback interface is not advertised into OSPF, making it unreachable.

    Why it's wrong here

    If the loopback were not advertised, the NMS would not have a route, but the debug shows packets reaching R2 and being dropped by ACL, so routing is working.

Common exam traps

Common exam trap: answer the scenario, not the keyword

Cisco often tests the concept that ACLs can be applied to SNMP community strings (not just interfaces), and candidates mistakenly assume 'no ACL on interfaces' means no ACL is dropping traffic, overlooking the community-string-level ACL as the root cause.

Trap categories for this question

  • Command / output trap

    OSPF network type mismatch can cause adjacency issues, but the symptom is SNMP polling failure, not routing loss. Debug shows ACL violation, not routing.

Detailed technical explanation

How to think about this question

SNMP community ACLs are applied directly to the community string, not to an interface, and are evaluated before any SNMP processing occurs. The 'access-list violation' debug message is generated by the router's IP stack when an incoming packet matches a deny entry in any ACL, including those referenced by the 'snmp-server community' command. In real-world scenarios, this is a common misconfiguration when administrators copy SNMP configurations between devices without adjusting the ACL to include the correct NMS source IP, leading to silent polling failures that are difficult to trace without enabling debug ip packet.

KKey Concepts to Remember

  • Read the scenario before looking for a memorised answer.
  • Find the constraint that changes the correct option.
  • Eliminate answers that are true in general but not in this case.

TExam Day Tips

  • Watch for words such as best, first, most likely and least administrative effort.
  • Review why wrong options are wrong, not only why the correct option is correct.

Key takeaway

Answer the scenario, not the keyword: identify the specific constraint before choosing the most familiar-sounding option.

Real-world example

How this comes up in practice

A network engineer at a university connects two campus buildings via a fibre link. Both routers run OSPF, but no adjacency forms — even though both routers can ping each other. The engineer finds one router is in area 0 and the other in area 1. OSPF adjacency requires matching area numbers, hello/dead timers, and network type. IP reachability alone is not enough.

Visual reference

R1 R2 R3 R4 10 100 10 100 OSPF picks R1→R2→R4 (cost 20) over R1→R3→R4 (cost 200)

Quick reference

Routing Protocol Comparison

ProtocolMetricMax HopsAlgorithmType
RIP v2Hop count15Bellman-FordDistance vector
OSPFCost (bandwidth)UnlimitedDijkstra (SPF)Link state
EIGRPComposite metricUnlimitedDUALHybrid
IS-ISCostUnlimitedDijkstraLink state
BGPPolicy / attributesUnlimitedPath vectorPath vector

RIP's 15-hop limit makes it unsuitable for large networks. OSPF and EIGRP dominate modern enterprise deployments.

What to study next

Got this wrong? Here's your next step.

Identify which exam domain this question belongs to, review the core concept, then practise similar questions from the same domain.

Related practice questions

Related 300-410 practice-question pages

Use these pages to review the topic behind this question. This is how one missed question becomes focused revision.

Practice this exam

Start a free 300-410 practice session

Short sessions build daily habit. Longer sessions build exam-day stamina. Try a timed session to simulate real conditions.

FAQ

Questions learners often ask

What does this 300-410 question test?

SNMP Troubleshooting — This question tests SNMP Troubleshooting — Read the scenario before looking for a memorised answer..

What is the correct answer to this question?

The correct answer is: An ACL is applied to the SNMP community string that does not permit the NMS IP address. — The debug output on R2 shows packets from the NMS (10.1.1.100) to R2's Loopback0 (10.2.2.2) being dropped with 'access-list violation'. Since no ACL is applied to any interface on R2, the only remaining ACL that could cause this is an SNMP community ACL. The SNMP community string 'public' or 'private' can have an optional ACL applied via the 'snmp-server community <string> [view <view-name>] [ro|rw] [acl-number]' command. If that ACL does not permit the NMS IP address (10.1.1.100), the router will silently drop SNMP packets from that source, even though no interface ACL exists. This matches the symptom exactly.

What should I do if I get this 300-410 question wrong?

Identify which exam domain this question belongs to, review the core concept, then practise similar questions from the same domain.

What is the key concept behind this question?

Read the scenario before looking for a memorised answer.

About these practice questions

Courseiva creates original exam-style practice questions with explanations and wrong-answer analysis. It does not publish real exam questions, exam dumps, or protected exam content. Learn why practice questions differ from exam dumps →

How Courseiva writes practice questions · Editorial policy

Keep practising

More 300-410 practice questions

Last reviewed: Jul 4, 2026

Question Discussion

Share a tip, memory trick, or ask about the reasoning behind this question. Do not post real exam questions, leaked content, braindumps, or copyrighted exam material. Comments are moderated and may be removed without notice.

Loading comments…

Sign in to join the discussion.

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.