An administrator examines the following output from a Cisco router's IPv4 routing table:
text
Codes: C - connected, S - static, R - RIP, M - mobile, B - BGP
D - EIGRP, EX - EIGRP external, O - OSPF, IA - OSPF inter area
Gateway of last resort is not set
10.0.0.0/8 is variably subnetted, 6 subnets, 3 masks
O 10.20.30.0/24 [110/20] via 192.168.12.2, 00:15:32, GigabitEthernet0/0
D 10.20.30.32/28 [90/307200] via 192.168.23.2, 01:42:10, GigabitEthernet0/1
S 10.20.30.40/29 [1/0] via 192.168.34.2
O IA 10.20.30.44/30 [110/50] via 192.168.45.2, 00:08:19, GigabitEthernet0/2
Which two statements accurately interpret the components and forwarding behavior of this routing table? (Select two.)
- Packets destined for host 10.20.30.45 will be egressed via interface GigabitEthernet0/2 because 10.20.30.44/30 provides the longest matching prefix for that destination address.Cevap
- The bracketed notation [90/307200] in the 10.20.30.32/28 route entry specifies an Administrative Distance of 90 and an EIGRP composite metric of 307200.Cevap
- CPackets destined for host 10.20.30.45 will be routed via next-hop 192.168.34.2 because the static route entry 10.20.30.40/29 features the lowest Administrative Distance.
- DHost 10.20.30.45 cannot match the route entry 10.20.30.44/30 because 10.20.30.45 is the subnet broadcast address of that /30 network.
Cevap
The correct statements are that packets for destination 10.20.30.45 will exit via GigabitEthernet0/2 due to longest prefix match (/30), and that [90/307200] defines an Administrative Distance of 90 and metric of 307200.
The router uses the Longest Prefix Match rule during packet lookup. Since destination 10.20.30.45 falls into 10.20.30.44/30 (range 10.20.30.44 to 10.20.30.47), the /30 prefix length is the longest and takes precedence over /29, /28, and /24. Additionally, routing table bracket notation [X/Y] represents [Administrative Distance / Metric], correctly mapping [90/307200] to AD 90 and EIGRP metric 307200.
Adım Adım Çözüm
Anahtar Kavram
Routing Table Components and Longest Prefix Match Forwarding Logic