Cisco 200-301 Exam Dumps, Practice Test Questions

This reports OSPF routes selected into the RIB; not every LSA in the link-state database becomes a selected installed route.

This reports peers and adjacency states, not the full set of received and originated link-state advertisements.

Ethernet counters are physical and link-layer statistics rather than OSPF LSA contents.

The network statement uses inverse wildcard matching, not an IPv4 /24 subnet mask in the wildcard position.

The network and wildcard are appropriate but area 1 is not the specified backbone area 0.

This wildcard is much broader than /24 and can match additional interfaces not authorized for the requested OSPF area.

ARP resolves local IPv4 next-hop IP addresses into link-layer entries and does not report an OSPF process network match.

Trunk output concerns tagged VLAN transport and cannot directly establish which routed subnets are selected by OSPF network statements.

A switch MAC address table reveals L2 learning, not routing protocol participation and passive-interface settings.

The requirement is to advertise the connected prefix to neighbors on other links while suppressing Hellos toward local users.

Priority 0 affects DR/BDR eligibility on broadcast links but the interface still sends and receives OSPF Hellos.

Area type is not a substitute for preventing neighbor formation on an endpoint-facing interface.

Without hellos, the interface cannot form the full neighbor adjacency claimed here, and passive status does not inherently remove the connected prefix from advertisement.

Passive-interface affects OSPF control-plane exchanges, not the interface’s administrative state or ordinary IP data forwarding.

OSPF remains IP protocol 89; TCP port 179 is associated with BGP, not a passive-mode replacement for OSPF.

Routing tables report installed destinations but do not directly enumerate the OSPF area configured on Gi0/1.

Missing neighbors is a symptom; detailed interface output provides the area and Hello properties to compare.

Duplicate IDs may cause failures, but this question specifically calls for reading configured area numbers and interface OSPF state.

OSPF is a shortest-path protocol and prefers lower total cost (40) when candidates have matching route type and prefix.

Arrival order is not the preferred route criterion over eligible lower-cost intra-area OSPF paths.

Interface labels do not override the computed total OSPF path metric.

Router ID is a process identifier, not the per-interface cost used in SPF.

Hello timer influences neighbor liveness, not the link’s configured OSPF path cost.

Priority affects DR election on broadcast networks rather than path metric.

An OSPF DR election uses router interface priority and RID among eligible participants; an arbitrary higher interface IPv4 address does not override the already elected BDR role.

The BDR exists so a segment can promote it if the DR disappears. A new BDR can then be elected without restarting every OSPF process.

OSPF path metric determines route cost, not which router becomes DR on a broadcast multiaccess network.

Priority 0 removes DR/BDR candidacy but does not suppress OSPF Hellos or all neighbor activity.

That would undermine the requested routed interface and is not how passive-interface retains network advertisement.

Summarization/area range operations do not prohibit OSPF Hello messages on the endpoint-facing VLAN.

Priority changes DR election eligibility; peers on a link still require compatible area identifiers.

MTU mismatches can affect adjacency progression, but do not resolve a fundamental area mismatch in Hello parameters.

OSPF process IDs are locally significant, while the area of the shared link must agree.