Pass Your Cisco 350-401 Exam Easy!

Placing the connected OSPFv3 interfaces into the same intended area, maintaining valid process and instance alignment would not place ASBR external routes in an area type that supports external LSAs or adjust area design deliberately.

Ensuring the ABR connects the normal area to area0 through supported backbone topology would not place ASBR external routes in an area type that supports external LSAs or adjust area design deliberately.

Applying the appropriate external redistribution route-map or prefix controls at the ASBR would not place ASBR external routes in an area type that supports external LSAs or adjust area design deliberately.

This test measures a different behavior: Check OSPFv3 interface area IDs and neighbor state until adjacency reaches Full. It does not establish the target outcome. For the documented fault, the direct acceptance test is: check area type, LSA database and default-route behavior for the selected stub model.

This test measures a different behavior: Inspect ABR LSAs and inter-area route presence from area10 toward area0 destinations. It does not establish the target outcome. For the documented fault, the direct acceptance test is: check area type, LSA database and default-route behavior for the selected stub model.

This test measures a different behavior: Inspect redistributed external LSAs and confirm prohibited prefixes are not originated. It does not establish the target outcome. For the documented fault, the direct acceptance test is: check area type, LSA database and default-route behavior for the selected stub model.

That diagnosis is supported by a different symptom: No OSPFv3 adjacency forms despite IPv6 link-local connectivity. Here the recorded observation is: external routes are absent inside the stub despite a working internal adjacency. The applicable cause is: stub areas suppress Type 5 external LSAs; the expectation of normal external flooding was wrong.

That diagnosis is supported by a different symptom: Intra-area reachability works but normal inter-area destinations are absent. Here the recorded observation is: external routes are absent inside the stub despite a working internal adjacency. The applicable cause is: stub areas suppress Type 5 external LSAs; the expectation of normal external flooding was wrong.

That diagnosis is supported by a different symptom: External prefixes still appear in OSPF despite a changed inter-area summary range. Here the recorded observation is: external routes are absent inside the stub despite a working internal adjacency. The applicable cause is: stub areas suppress Type 5 external LSAs; the expectation of normal external flooding was wrong.

Aligning OSPFv3 interfaces does not address the OSPF external Type 5 LSA restriction in this stub-area design.

That control reduces a separate risk: Area10 is not connected to a valid backbone path for inter-area routing. For the described design, the recurring risk arises from: stub areas suppress Type 5 external LSAs; the expectation of normal external flooding was wrong. The specific required safeguard is: document area type and expected LSA categories before adding redistribution.

Redistribution filters cannot override the stub area restriction against external Type 5 LSAs; the area design must support them.

Configuring the appropriate OSPF point-to-point network type on the dedicated link would not interpret DR/BDR election and normal DROther-to-DROther 2-Way behavior on broadcast networks.

Making the LAN-facing OSPF interface passive while still advertising its connected prefix as appropriate would not interpret DR/BDR election and normal DROther-to-DROther 2-Way behavior on broadcast networks.

Assigning distinct stable router IDs and restart/clear the relevant OSPF process as required by the platform would not interpret DR/BDR election and normal DROther-to-DROther 2-Way behavior on broadcast networks.

This test measures a different behavior: Verify no DR/BDR election and the peer reaches Full on the point-to-point interface. It does not establish the target outcome. For the documented fault, the direct acceptance test is: check that both DROthers form Full adjacency to the designated router or backup router as appropriate.

This test measures a different behavior: Check `show ip ospf neighbor` transitions to Full and peer router IDs are unique. It does not establish the target outcome. For the documented fault, the direct acceptance test is: check that both DROthers form Full adjacency to the designated router or backup router as appropriate.

This test measures a different behavior: Inspect OSPF interface/passive state and verify no LAN neighbor adjacencies form. It does not establish the target outcome. For the documented fault, the direct acceptance test is: check that both DROthers form Full adjacency to the designated router or backup router as appropriate.

That diagnosis is supported by a different symptom: Untrusted LAN hosts receive OSPF Hellos and can attempt to form adjacencies. Here the recorded observation is: two DROthers remain in 2-Way even though the network is forwarding routes normally. The applicable cause is: the DR/BDR adjacency topology intentionally avoids full DROther-to-DROther adjacencies.

That diagnosis is supported by a different symptom: A two-router point-to-point link unexpectedly elects a DR and follows broadcast-style adjacency rules. Here the recorded observation is: two DROthers remain in 2-Way even though the network is forwarding routes normally. The applicable cause is: the DR/BDR adjacency topology intentionally avoids full DROther-to-DROther adjacencies.

That diagnosis is supported by a different symptom: OSPF adjacency fails or behaves inconsistently when duplicate router IDs are present. Here the recorded observation is: two DROthers remain in 2-Way even though the network is forwarding routes normally. The applicable cause is: the DR/BDR adjacency topology intentionally avoids full DROther-to-DROther adjacencies.

The needed correction is to interpret DR/BDR election and normal DROther-to-DROther 2-Way behavior on broadcast networks.

That control reduces a separate risk: The peers do not agree on required OSPF hello/dead interval parameters. For the described design, the recurring risk arises from: the DR/BDR adjacency topology intentionally avoids full DROther-to-DROther adjacencies. The specific required safeguard is: train responders to correlate neighbor role with state before resetting healthy OSPF links.

This test measures a different behavior: Check `show ip ospf neighbor` transitions to Full and peer router IDs are unique. It does not establish the target outcome. For the documented fault, the direct acceptance test is: check that both DROthers form Full adjacency to the designated router or backup router as appropriate.

DR/BDR election is normal on a broadcast-style OSPF network, but this dedicated two-router link needs point-to-point operation without a DR election.

ASBR external-route handling concerns area design, not the incorrect OSPF network type on this link.

Changing router IDs does not fix a point-to-point link configured to behave as a broadcast segment.

This test measures a different behavior: Check `show ip ospf neighbor` transitions to Full and peer router IDs are unique. It does not establish the target outcome. For the documented fault, the direct acceptance test is: verify no DR/BDR election and the peer reaches Full on the point-to-point interface.

This test measures a different behavior: Check area type, LSA database and default-route behavior for the selected stub model. It does not establish the target outcome. For the documented fault, the direct acceptance test is: verify no DR/BDR election and the peer reaches Full on the point-to-point interface.

This test measures a different behavior: Check that both DROthers form Full adjacency to the designated router or backup router as appropriate. It does not establish the target outcome. For the documented fault, the direct acceptance test is: verify no DR/BDR election and the peer reaches Full on the point-to-point interface.

That diagnosis is supported by a different symptom: OSPF adjacency fails or behaves inconsistently when duplicate router IDs are present. Here the recorded observation is: a two-router point-to-point link unexpectedly elects a DR and follows broadcast-style adjacency rules. The applicable cause is: the OSPF network type is set to broadcast instead of point-to-point.

That diagnosis is supported by a different symptom: Two DROthers remain in 2-Way even though the network is forwarding routes normally. Here the recorded observation is: a two-router point-to-point link unexpectedly elects a DR and follows broadcast-style adjacency rules. The applicable cause is: the OSPF network type is set to broadcast instead of point-to-point.

That diagnosis is supported by a different symptom: External routes are absent inside the stub despite a working internal adjacency. Here the recorded observation is: a two-router point-to-point link unexpectedly elects a DR and follows broadcast-style adjacency rules. The applicable cause is: the OSPF network type is set to broadcast instead of point-to-point.