Cisco 200-301 Exam Dumps, Practice Test Questions

The static would win while both are available, contrary to remaining inactive when the primary recovers.

Equal AD does not establish an unambiguous primary/standby preference.

AD 255 is not an eligible installed route and cannot provide the intended failover.

Filtering the running configuration lists configured static statements but not the complete installed IPv4 route table.

The ARP table maps directly reachable IPv4 neighbors to link-layer addresses; it is not the route table.

The `show ipv6 route` command displays a different address family, so it cannot supply the requested IPv4 RIB.

A configured static route may fail next-hop recursion or lose installation preference, so the startup or running configuration alone is insufficient.

Show ip route inspects IPv4 routes and cannot correctly parse a colon-separated IPv6 destination prefix.

A successful or failed probe to one host does not establish that this particular configured route is the active RIB selection.

The 10.0.0.0/8 route matches only 10.x.x.x destinations, not the example 203.0.113.20 address.

Interface numbering does not supply a route fallback when the RIB has no matching destination entry.

An ARP neighbor is a Layer 2 adjacency, not an automatically generated default route in the IP routing table.

Running configuration shows configured `ip route` lines even if a candidate is not installed; that does not limit the result to active routes in the routing information base.

OSPF neighbor output diagnoses an IGP adjacency, not installed static entries.

Switch trunk output describes 802.1Q Layer 2 VLAN transport, not the router’s IP RIB.

An IPv4 probe cannot test reachability to the stated 2001:db8:2::2 IPv6 destination.

A route display is useful but is not the active end-to-end IPv6 ICMP reachability probe requested.

A trace to an unrelated IPv4 address cannot establish the stated IPv6 destination is reachable.

Reference bandwidth changes computed interface costs but does not make the mismatched OSPF area identifiers agree.

SNMP management authentication is separate from OSPF Hello adjacency formation and has no effect on OSPF area identity.

Passive interfaces suppress Hello exchange and would prevent the desired adjacency instead of resolving an area mismatch.

Metric equality is not an OSPF Hello compatibility requirement; the given mismatch is in timer fields.

Router IDs must be unique among separate OSPF routers; copying them does not repair timer incompatibility.

Passive mode stops Hellos and prevents adjacency formation, which is the opposite of the target.

CDP discovers directly connected devices but does not validate OSPF authentication fields or resolve mismatched OSPF keys.

OSPF cost computation can be different without blocking neighbor formation; the failure is authentication compatibility.

This would remove the OSPFv2 IP reachability needed for Hello packets and would not solve authentication.

A metric mismatch affects route preference but does not fix incompatible subnet-mask fields in OSPF broadcast Hellos.

Duplicated router IDs are themselves invalid for distinct neighbors and do not reconcile the mismatched on-link IPv4 masks.

A fallback may provide limited connectivity but it does not repair the broadcast-link OSPF subnet-mask mismatch.

Reference bandwidth affects cost calculation and will not enable Hello transmission on a passive OSPF interface.

A default route may affect user traffic reachability but does not undo passive-interface suppression of OSPF Hellos.

That would stop both peers from sending Hellos and make adjacency formation even less likely.