Cisco 200-301 Exam Dumps, Practice Test Questions

A router forwards a new Ethernet frame on VLAN 20 with a local outgoing source MAC and next-hop/host destination MAC.

Normal IP forwarding keeps the final IPv4 destination; the next hop is used for outgoing Layer 2 delivery.

Both interfaces are Ethernet VLANs, so the new hop uses Ethernet L2 encapsulation rather than an unrelated Wi-Fi exchange.

Administrative distance helps a router decide which comparable routes enter the routing table; a higher distance is not the preference. Packet forwarding uses the installed most-specific destination match.

The shortest matching prefix is the broadest route, such as a default or aggregate. Longest-prefix matching prefers the most specific installed entry that covers the destination.

Ordinary CEF destination-prefix lookup is not conditional on a packet carrying HTTPS. Application-layer inspection or policy can affect filtering but is not the requested route-selection algorithm.

The next-hop IP is another device, so its resolved MAC—not this router’s local interface MAC—is the destination.

Routing process IDs are not ARP protocol bindings for 192.0.2.1 on the attached Ethernet link.

A route entry identifies next hop/egress; ARP must resolve the adjacent IPv4 destination to a link-layer address.

A connected /30 covers the interface subnet, but the more-specific local /32 identifies the destination owned by the router itself.

Cisco installs local routes precisely to accept traffic addressed to locally owned interface addresses, so an unconditional discard is incorrect.

A matching /32 local route is more specific than the default and prevents default-route forwarding for this local IP destination.

Static routes default to AD 1, but this one explicitly has AD 200; the valid OSPF AD 110 same-prefix route wins.

Next-hop address magnitude does not rank otherwise eligible route sources for one identical prefix.

The prefixes are identical /16 entries, so lower administrative distance—not prefix specificity—decides the installed source.

A routing choice does not bypass an outbound ACL; packet filtering can still drop an otherwise routable packet.

Administrative distance affects RIB source selection and cannot authorize packets denied by interface policy.

Prefix selection chooses egress; it is separate from whether an ACL allows the traffic.

The primary path no longer provides an eligible route; the backup static can become the preferred remaining same-prefix candidate.

A usable /16 is more specific than the default and the backup is now eligible to install.

A withdrawn OSPF path is not an eligible RIB candidate, regardless of its former metric.

The /16 is not required for forwarding to a destination with its own still-valid installed /32 route.

When both are installed and match, the /32 is longer and outranks the less-specific /0 default in packet forwarding.

A withdrawn prefix cannot be selected from the active FIB, and administrative distance does not override a longer installed destination match.

A failed adjacency removed from the FIB is not a valid ECMP member; retaining it indefinitely would blackhole traffic.

An eligible remaining route can forward packets, so total discard is not implied by loss of one parallel uplink.

IP routing and next-hop selection are network-layer decisions rather than choices made by an application DNS record.

Among already installed prefixes /24 and /0, forwarding uses longest prefix, not AD across prefixes.

ECMP applies to eligible equal-cost paths of a route, not two different prefix lengths of /24 and /0.

The destination is explicitly inside the installed 172.16.4.0/24 OSPF prefix.

Router interfaces are not arbitrary fallback paths; without a route there is no valid next-hop selection.

ARP can resolve an on-link next hop but cannot replace a missing routing-table match to an off-link destination.

Administrative distance ranks available same-prefix candidates, and cannot produce a route from an empty match set.