Pass Your Cisco 350-401 Exam Easy!

Originate only the intended present RIB prefixes using valid BGP network or controlled redistribution policy would not correct the neighbor IP to the reachable remote interface address and validate local source selection.

Prepend the customer's own ASN on advertisements sent through the backup eBGP peer as appropriate would not correct the neighbor IP to the reachable remote interface address and validate local source selection.

Configuring the neighbor address with the correct remote autonomous-system number and reachable interface source would not correct the neighbor IP to the reachable remote interface address and validate local source selection.

This test measures a different behavior: Inspect the AS_PATH actually advertised to backup and primary providers. It does not establish the target outcome. For the documented fault, the direct acceptance test is: ping the peer interface and verify TCP179 opens and the BGP FSM reaches Established.

This test measures a different behavior: Compare BGP locally originated and advertised routes with the underlying RIB for the subnet. It does not establish the target outcome. For the documented fault, the direct acceptance test is: ping the peer interface and verify TCP179 opens and the BGP FSM reaches Established.

This test measures a different behavior: Check advertised-routes from the local neighbor and confirm private RFC1918 entries are absent. It does not establish the target outcome. For the documented fault, the direct acceptance test is: ping the peer interface and verify TCP179 opens and the BGP FSM reaches Established.

That diagnosis is supported by a different symptom: The eBGP peer remains in Active because the remote-as is configured as the same local AS. Here the recorded observation is: neighbor stays Idle/Active while an IP ping to a different remote address succeeds. The applicable cause is: the configured BGP neighbor destination is not the address actually used by the peer.

That diagnosis is supported by a different symptom: The backup provider receives an equally short AS_PATH and incoming traffic does not prefer the primary as intended. Here the recorded observation is: neighbor stays Idle/Active while an IP ping to a different remote address succeeds. The applicable cause is: the configured BGP neighbor destination is not the address actually used by the peer.

That diagnosis is supported by a different symptom: BGP Established appears healthy but the neighbor learns zero intended customer routes. Here the recorded observation is: neighbor stays Idle/Active while an IP ping to a different remote address succeeds. The applicable cause is: the configured BGP neighbor destination is not the address actually used by the peer.

AS-path prepending controls route preference after peering; it cannot establish a session aimed at the wrong neighbor IP.

Correct remote-AS and source settings matter, but the described error is the stored neighbor IP. This choice is potentially overlapping and requires an answer-exclusivity review.

That control reduces a separate risk: The required prefix was not originated into BGP despite a working peer session. For the described design, the recurring risk arises from: the configured BGP neighbor destination is not the address actually used by the peer. The specific required safeguard is: document physical-link addressing and compare live neighbor entries against interface inventory.

Comparing valid BGP AS path lengths at the appropriate decision stage and selecting shorter path when higher priorities tie would not restore next-hop reachability through appropriate IGP/static routing or supported next-hop-self policy where required.

Applying an appropriate Cisco-local BGP weight policy on the chosen router without expecting it to propagate to peers would not restore next-hop reachability through appropriate IGP/static routing or supported next-hop-self policy where required.

Originate only the intended present RIB prefixes using valid BGP network or controlled redistribution policy would not restore next-hop reachability through appropriate IGP/static routing or supported next-hop-self policy where required.

This test measures a different behavior: Inspect local weight and best-path choice, then confirm neighboring iBGP routers do not inherit that weight. It does not establish the target outcome. For the documented fault, the direct acceptance test is: check BGP next-hop resolution and RIB installation of the previously ineligible prefix.

This test measures a different behavior: Compare BGP locally originated and advertised routes with the underlying RIB for the subnet. It does not establish the target outcome. For the documented fault, the direct acceptance test is: check BGP next-hop resolution and RIB installation of the previously ineligible prefix.

This test measures a different behavior: Read BGP path attributes and best-path result for the two alternatives. It does not establish the target outcome. For the documented fault, the direct acceptance test is: check BGP next-hop resolution and RIB installation of the previously ineligible prefix.

That diagnosis is supported by a different symptom: An operator expects a change to local Cisco weight to alter all routers' best paths. Here the recorded observation is: `show bgp` displays a received network but no usable installed route due to inaccessible next hop. The applicable cause is: the BGP NEXT_HOP attribute has no resolvable path in the routing table.

That diagnosis is supported by a different symptom: BGP Established appears healthy but the neighbor learns zero intended customer routes. Here the recorded observation is: `show bgp` displays a received network but no usable installed route due to inaccessible next hop. The applicable cause is: the BGP NEXT_HOP attribute has no resolvable path in the routing table.

That diagnosis is supported by a different symptom: Traffic chooses the longer provider path although all higher-priority attributes tie and the shorter path is eligible. Here the recorded observation is: `show bgp` displays a received network but no usable installed route due to inaccessible next hop. The applicable cause is: the BGP NEXT_HOP attribute has no resolvable path in the routing table.

That control reduces a separate risk: BGP weight is locally significant and is not advertised in BGP updates. For the described design, the recurring risk arises from: the BGP NEXT_HOP attribute has no resolvable path in the routing table. The specific required safeguard is: validate next-hop reachability separately from BGP session Established status.

That control reduces a separate risk: An intentional AS-path prepend on the shorter provider made it appear longer to the receiver. For the described design, the recurring risk arises from: the BGP NEXT_HOP attribute has no resolvable path in the routing table. The specific required safeguard is: validate next-hop reachability separately from BGP session Established status.

That control reduces a separate risk: The required prefix was not originated into BGP despite a working peer session. For the described design, the recurring risk arises from: the BGP NEXT_HOP attribute has no resolvable path in the routing table. The specific required safeguard is: validate next-hop reachability separately from BGP session Established status.

Applying the intended inbound/local BGP local preference policy consistently within the receiving AS would not apply an appropriate Cisco-local BGP weight policy on the chosen router without expecting it to propagate to peers.

Comparing valid BGP AS path lengths at the appropriate decision stage and selecting shorter path when higher priorities tie would not apply an appropriate Cisco-local BGP weight policy on the chosen router without expecting it to propagate to peers.

Restoring next-hop reachability through appropriate IGP/static routing or supported next-hop-self policy where required would not apply an appropriate Cisco-local BGP weight policy on the chosen router without expecting it to propagate to peers.

This test measures a different behavior: Inspect `show bgp` best-path attributes and verify the higher local-preference path is chosen. It does not establish the target outcome. For the documented fault, the direct acceptance test is: inspect local weight and best-path choice, then confirm neighboring iBGP routers do not inherit that weight.

This test measures a different behavior: Check BGP next-hop resolution and RIB installation of the previously ineligible prefix. It does not establish the target outcome. For the documented fault, the direct acceptance test is: inspect local weight and best-path choice, then confirm neighboring iBGP routers do not inherit that weight.

This test measures a different behavior: Read BGP path attributes and best-path result for the two alternatives. It does not establish the target outcome. For the documented fault, the direct acceptance test is: inspect local weight and best-path choice, then confirm neighboring iBGP routers do not inherit that weight.

That diagnosis is supported by a different symptom: Traffic chooses the longer provider path although all higher-priority attributes tie and the shorter path is eligible. Here the recorded observation is: an operator expects a change to local Cisco weight to alter all routers' best paths. The applicable cause is: bGP weight is locally significant and is not advertised in BGP updates.

That diagnosis is supported by a different symptom: An engineer predicts the shorter AS_PATH must win although another route has higher LOCAL_PREF. Here the recorded observation is: an operator expects a change to local Cisco weight to alter all routers' best paths. The applicable cause is: bGP weight is locally significant and is not advertised in BGP updates.

That diagnosis is supported by a different symptom: `show bgp` displays a received network but no usable installed route due to inaccessible next hop. Here the recorded observation is: an operator expects a change to local Cisco weight to alter all routers' best paths. The applicable cause is: bGP weight is locally significant and is not advertised in BGP updates.