A network engineer is configuring OSPFv2 on router R1, which has the following interface states and IPv4 configurations:
- Loopback0: 192.168.254.1/32 (administratively down, line protocol down)
- Loopback1: 172.16.50.1/24 (up, line protocol up)
- Loopback2: 10.255.255.1/24 (up, line protocol up)
- GigabitEthernet0/0: 10.1.1.1/30 (up, line protocol up)
- GigabitEthernet0/1: 192.168.1.1/30 (up, line protocol up)
The engineer starts the OSPF process using `router ospf 1`. Immediately after, the engineer configures `router-id 1.1.1.1` under the OSPF process prompt but does NOT issue a `clear ip ospf process` command. Router R1 then attempts to establish an OSPFv2 adjacency over GigabitEthernet0/0 (Area 0) with directly connected router R2. Router R2 already has a manually configured static OSPF Router ID of .
Which outcome correctly describes the OSPF neighbor state and behavior between R1 and R2?
- The routers fail to establish an OSPF adjacency because both routers are using the duplicate Router ID 172.16.50.1.Cevap
- BThe routers successfully reach FULL state because R1 immediately adopted the Router ID 1.1.1.1 upon configuration.
- CThe routers fail to establish an OSPF adjacency because R1 selected 192.168.254.1 from Loopback0, which is unreachable over Area 0.
- DThe routers reach FULL state because R1 dynamically selected 192.168.1.1 as the highest active physical interface IP address.