Cisco CCNA 200-301 v2.0: IP Routing

Topic snapshot

Sample questions

These questions are original IT Mastery practice items aligned to this topic area. They are designed for self-assessment and are not official exam questions.

Question 1

Topic: IP Routing

A router receives a packet destined for 10.10.20.45. Using only the routing-table excerpt, which conclusion is best?

Exhibit:

R1# show ip route | include Gateway|10.10.20|172.16
Gateway of last resort is 192.0.2.1 to network 0.0.0.0
O     10.10.20.0/24 [110/20] via 172.16.12.2, GigabitEthernet0/0
S     10.10.20.32/28 [1/0] via 172.16.13.3, GigabitEthernet0/1
S     10.10.20.45/32 [1/0] via 172.16.14.4, GigabitEthernet0/2
S*    0.0.0.0/0 [1/0] via 192.0.2.1

Options:

• A. R1 uses the /28 static route because it has low administrative distance.

• B. R1 uses the default route because multiple specific routes match.

• C. R1 forwards it to 172.16.14.4 out GigabitEthernet0/2.

• D. R1 uses the OSPF route because it covers the whole subnet.

Best answer: C

Explanation: Routers choose a route by longest prefix match first. The destination 10.10.20.45 matches the /24, the /28, and the /32 routes, but the /32 host route is the most specific match. Administrative distance is used only when competing routes have the same prefix length for the same destination network, so it does not make the /28 route win over the /32 route. The routing table supports only the local forwarding decision from R1; it does not prove end-to-end reachability or return-path routing beyond the selected next hop.

• Subnet coverage trap fails because the broader OSPF /24 is less specific than the host route.
• Administrative distance trap fails because prefix length is considered before administrative distance.
• Default route trap fails because default routes are used only when no more-specific route matches.

Question 2

Topic: IP Routing

R1 and R2 should exchange IPv4 routes using single-area OSPFv2 in area 0. Users behind R1 cannot reach 10.2.2.0/24 behind R2. The R1-R2 link is up, and R1 can ping R2 at 10.0.12.2.

Exhibit:

R1# show ip ospf neighbor
<no neighbors>

R1# show running-config | section router ospf
router ospf 10
 network 10.0.12.0 0.0.0.255 area 0
 network 10.1.1.0 0.0.0.255 area 0

R2# show running-config | section router ospf
router ospf 10
 network 10.2.2.0 0.0.0.255 area 0

Which corrective action is best supported by the evidence?

Options:

• A. Add R2 network 10.0.12.0 0.0.0.255 area 0

• B. Configure a static route on R1 to 10.2.2.0/24

• C. Change R1 and R2 to the same OSPF process ID

• D. Move R2 LAN 10.2.2.0/24 to area 1

Best answer: A

Explanation: In OSPFv2, a network statement enables OSPF on matching IPv4 interfaces and assigns those interfaces to an area. The R1-R2 link is physically and IP-reachable because R1 can ping 10.0.12.2, but show ip ospf neighbor on R1 shows no neighbor. R1 has a network statement for the transit link, while R2 only enables OSPF on its LAN. Adding the transit subnet to R2 under OSPF area 0 allows R2 to send and receive OSPF hellos on that interface and form the single-area adjacency. A static route might restore one prefix temporarily, but it does not meet the dynamic routing requirement.

• Process ID match is not required because OSPF process IDs are locally significant on Cisco routers.
• Static routing bypasses the required dynamic OSPFv2 exchange and does not explain the missing neighbor.
• Area 1 on the LAN would create a multi-area design and still would not enable OSPF on the shared transit link.

Question 3

Topic: IP Routing

A router must send traffic for only one external server, 198.51.100.77, to ISP2 at 10.0.12.2. All other Internet traffic should use ISP1 at 10.0.13.3. What is the best next action based on the output?

Exhibit:

R1# show running-config | include ^ip route
ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 10.0.13.3
ip route 198.51.100.0 255.255.255.255 10.0.12.2

R1# show ip route 198.51.100.77
Routing entry for 0.0.0.0/0
  Known via "static", distance 1, metric 0
  * 10.0.13.3

Options:

• A. Replace the host route with 198.51.100.77/32 via 10.0.12.2.

• B. Change the default route to point to 10.0.12.2.

• C. Increase the administrative distance of the default route.

• D. Configure 198.51.100.0/24 via 10.0.12.2.

Best answer: A

Explanation: A host route uses a /32 mask, so the destination IP in the route must be the exact host that should match. The running configuration currently installs a host route for 198.51.100.0, not for 198.51.100.77. Because longest-prefix matching finds no /32 route for 198.51.100.77, the router correctly uses the default route through ISP1. The fix is to configure the host route with the exact server address and the ISP2 next hop. A broader /24 route would send more than one destination through ISP2, which violates the requirement.

• Default route change would move all Internet traffic to ISP2, not just the one server.
• Broader /24 route would match 256 addresses in the 198.51.100.0/24 subnet, not only one host.
• Administrative distance change does not create a matching host route for 198.51.100.77.

Question 4

Topic: IP Routing

R1 should learn 10.20.20.0/24 from R2 using single-area OSPF. A temporary static route was added during maintenance, and users behind R1 now cannot reach 10.20.20.0/24. What is the best interpretation and next action?

Exhibit:

R1# show ip ospf neighbor
Neighbor ID     Pri   State      Dead Time   Address      Interface
2.2.2.2           1   FULL/BDR   00:00:32    10.12.12.2   Gi0/0

R1# show ip route 10.20.20.0
Routing entry for 10.20.20.0/24
  Known via "static", distance 1, metric 0
  Routing Descriptor Blocks:
  * 10.12.12.254

Options:

• A. Change the OSPF area on R1 and R2

• B. Fix an OSPF neighbor adjacency failure

• C. Increase the OSPF reference bandwidth

• D. Remove or correct the static route on R1

Best answer: D

Explanation: The evidence points to a static route problem, not an OSPF adjacency problem. R1 has a FULL OSPF neighbor state with R2, so the adjacency is established. However, the route to 10.20.20.0/24 is installed as static with administrative distance 1, which is preferred over an OSPF route with administrative distance 110. If the static next hop is wrong or no longer valid, traffic will follow the bad static route even though OSPF is working. The next action is to remove the temporary static route, correct its next hop, or make it a true floating static route with a higher administrative distance than OSPF.

• Adjacency failure is not supported because the neighbor state is FULL/BDR.
• Area mismatch would commonly prevent adjacency formation, but the exhibit shows a formed neighbor relationship.
• Reference bandwidth affects OSPF metric calculation, not the fact that a static route is installed and preferred.

Question 5

Topic: IP Routing

A user connected to SW1 port Fa0/12 has IPv4 address 192.168.20.25/24 and default gateway 192.168.20.1. The user cannot reach server 10.30.30.10. Based on the output, what is the best interpretation?

Exhibit:

DSW1# show standby brief
Interface Grp Pri P State  Active  Standby       Virtual IP
Vl20      20  110 P Active local   192.168.20.3  192.168.20.1

DSW1# show ip route 10.30.30.10
Routing entry for 10.30.30.0/24
  Known via "ospf 1", distance 110, metric 20
  * 10.20.20.2, via GigabitEthernet1/0/1

SW1# show interfaces fa0/12 switchport | include Mode|Access Mode VLAN
Administrative Mode: static access
Operational Mode: static access
Access Mode VLAN: 10 (Users-10)

Options:

• A. Correct the VLAN or host addressing mismatch.

• B. Change the host gateway to 192.168.20.3.

• C. Troubleshoot HSRP failover for VLAN 20.

• D. Add a static route to 10.30.30.0/24.

Best answer: A

Explanation: The visible facts make an FHRP problem less likely. DSW1 is Active for HSRP group 20, it knows a standby peer, and the virtual IP matches the host default gateway. The route lookup also shows a route to the remote server network through OSPF. The conflicting fact is at Layer 2 and addressing: the client has a VLAN 20 IP address and gateway, but the access port is assigned to VLAN 10. The next action is to align the access VLAN with the host addressing plan, or correct the host IP settings for the VLAN where the port belongs. Do not start by changing HSRP when the gateway redundancy state and virtual IP look healthy.

• HSRP failover is not the best focus because the output shows an Active router, a standby peer, and the expected virtual IP.
• Physical gateway address is a trap because hosts should use the HSRP virtual IP, not a standby router address.
• Static route addition is unnecessary because a route to 10.30.30.0/24 is already present in the routing table.

Question 6

Topic: IP Routing

An access VLAN uses HSRP for the clients’ default gateway. Users in VLAN 10 can ping 10.10.10.1 but cannot reach server 172.16.50.10. R2 can ping the server.

Exhibit:

R1# show standby brief
Interface  Grp  Pri  P  State   Active  Standby    Virtual IP
Vl10       10   110  P  Active  local   10.10.10.3 10.10.10.1

R1# show ip interface brief | include Vlan10|Gi0/0
Vlan10     10.10.10.2    YES manual up    up
Gi0/0      203.0.113.2   YES manual down  down

R2# show standby brief
Interface  Grp  Pri  P  State    Active      Standby  Virtual IP
Vl10       10   100  P  Standby  10.10.10.2  local    10.10.10.1

R2# show ip interface brief | include Vlan10|Gi0/0
Vlan10     10.10.10.3    YES manual up  up
Gi0/0      203.0.113.6   YES manual up  up

Which corrective action best addresses the problem?

Options:

• A. Raise R1 HSRP priority above 110

• B. Track R1 Gi0/0 and decrement HSRP priority below 100

• C. Change clients to use 10.10.10.3 as the gateway

• D. Configure a different virtual IP on R2

Best answer: B

Explanation: HSRP selects the active router by priority, but it does not automatically give up the active role just because an unrelated upstream interface fails. In the exhibit, R1 is still active for virtual gateway 10.10.10.1, while its Gi0/0 uplink is down. R2 is standby, has the same virtual IP, and has an operational uplink. Configuring HSRP interface tracking on R1 with a decrement that drops its priority below R2’s priority lets R2 become active when R1 loses upstream reachability. This keeps clients using the same virtual IP while moving forwarding to the router that can reach the remote network.

• Raising R1 priority makes the failed-uplink router even more likely to stay active.
• Changing client gateways bypasses the FHRP design and removes transparent failover.
• Using a different virtual IP on R2 would create a gateway mismatch instead of fixing active-router selection.

Question 7

Topic: IP Routing

A network admin is verifying which route R1 will use for traffic to 10.30.10.25. The static and OSPF routes point to the same prefix length.

Exhibit:

R1# show ip route 10.30.10.0 255.255.255.0
Routing entry for 10.30.10.0/24
  Known via "static", distance 1, metric 0
  * 10.1.13.3, via GigabitEthernet0/1

R1# show ip ospf rib | include 10.30.10.0
10.30.10.0/24, cost 20, next-hop 10.1.12.2, distance 110

What is the best interpretation?

Options:

• A. R1 uses next hop 10.1.13.3.

• B. R1 load-balances across both next hops.

• C. R1 chooses based on the OSPF cost.

• D. R1 uses next hop 10.1.12.2.

Best answer: A

Explanation: When multiple routes match the same destination with the same prefix length, the router compares administrative distance before comparing protocol-specific metrics. In the exhibit, both candidates are for 10.30.10.0/24, so neither route is more specific. The static route has administrative distance 1, while the OSPF route has administrative distance 110. The lower administrative distance is preferred, so the static route is installed and used for forwarding traffic to 10.30.10.25.

Metrics such as OSPF cost are only compared among routes from the same routing source after the route source has been selected.

• OSPF next hop is not selected because its administrative distance is higher than the static route.
• Load balancing does not occur because the routes are from different sources with different administrative distances.
• OSPF cost is not the deciding value when comparing static and OSPF routes to the same prefix.

Question 8

Topic: IP Routing

Two IOS XE routers provide HSRP for VLAN 20. R1 should be the active gateway during normal operation, but R2 should take over if R1’s upstream interface GigabitEthernet0/0 goes down.

R1 Vlan20: 172.16.20.2/24, HSRP group 20, virtual IP 172.16.20.1, priority 110, preempt
R2 Vlan20: 172.16.20.3/24, HSRP group 20, virtual IP 172.16.20.1, priority 100, preempt

Which configuration decision meets the goal?

Options:

• A. On R1 Vlan20, track Vlan20 with decrement 20

• B. On R2 Vlan20, track GigabitEthernet0/0 with decrement 20

• C. On R1 Vlan20, track GigabitEthernet0/0 with decrement 20

• D. On R1 Vlan20, track GigabitEthernet0/0 with decrement 5

Best answer: C

Explanation: HSRP interface tracking adjusts a router’s effective priority when a tracked interface fails. In this case, R1 starts at priority 110 and R2 is priority 100. To make R2 take over after R1’s upstream failure, R1 must reduce its priority below 100 when GigabitEthernet0/0 fails. Applying tracking under R1’s HSRP-enabled Vlan20 interface with a decrement of 20 changes R1’s effective priority to 90. Because both routers have preempt enabled, R2 can become active when it has the higher priority. Tracking the LAN SVI or configuring the wrong router does not detect the upstream reachability problem from R1’s perspective.

• Wrong router fails because tracking R2’s interface does not lower R1’s priority when R1 loses its upstream path.
• Wrong interface fails because tracking Vlan20 detects the client VLAN state, not R1’s upstream failure.
• Insufficient decrement fails because reducing R1 from 110 to 105 still leaves it higher than R2’s priority of 100.

Question 9

Topic: IP Routing

Users on the R1 LAN cannot reach server 10.20.30.200 behind R2. The R1-to-R2 link is up/up: R1 G0/1 is 192.0.2.1/30, and R2 is 192.0.2.2/30. R1 can ping 192.0.2.2, and R2’s server LAN is 10.20.30.0/24.

Exhibit: R1 static route excerpt

R1# show ip route static
S 10.20.30.0/25 [1/0] via 192.0.2.2, GigabitEthernet0/1

Which corrective action best addresses the root cause?

Options:

• A. Change the outgoing interface to GigabitEthernet0/0.

• B. Change the next hop to 192.0.2.1.

• C. Change the static route mask to /24.

• D. Add a static host route to 192.0.2.2/32.

Best answer: C

Explanation: Static route troubleshooting starts by checking whether the destination IP matches the configured destination and mask, then confirming the next hop and outgoing interface. The next hop 192.0.2.2 is reachable, and the route points out the R1-to-R2 interface, so those facts are not the problem. The issue is the mask: 10.20.30.0/25 covers only 10.20.30.0 through 10.20.30.127. The server 10.20.30.200 is outside that range. A static route for 10.20.30.0/24 via 192.0.2.2 would cover the whole R2 LAN.

• Next-hop change fails because 192.0.2.1 is R1’s own interface, not R2’s next-hop address.
• Interface change is unsupported because the shown outgoing interface is the up/up link toward R2.
• Host route to next hop does not fix matching for the server destination network.

Question 10

Topic: IP Routing

After a branch router replacement, R3 intermittently loses OSPF-learned routes from one branch. The physical links are up, and both branch links are in area 0.

Exhibit: R3 evidence

R3# show ip interface brief | include GigabitEthernet0/[01]
Gi0/0  10.0.13.1  YES manual  up  up
Gi0/1  10.0.23.1  YES manual  up  up

R3# show ip ospf neighbor
Neighbor ID     State    Address     Interface
2.2.2.2         FULL/DR  10.0.13.2   Gi0/0
2.2.2.2         FULL/BDR 10.0.23.2   Gi0/1

%OSPF-4-DUP_RTRID: Duplicate router ID 2.2.2.2 detected in area 0

What is the best corrective action?

Options:

• A. Add a higher IPv4 loopback address without restarting OSPF.

• B. Change both Ethernet OSPF links to point-to-point network type.

• C. Replace the cable on R3 Gi0/1.

• D. Configure a unique OSPF router ID on one branch router and restart OSPF.

Best answer: D

Explanation: OSPF identifies routers by router ID, not by the interface IP address used to form the adjacency. R3 sees two different neighbor addresses, but both neighbors report the same OSPF router ID, and the syslog message confirms a duplicate router ID in area 0. Duplicate router IDs can cause unstable adjacencies and incorrect LSA interpretation, which explains intermittent route loss. The fix is to make the router IDs unique, preferably with an explicit router-id under the OSPF process, then restart or clear the OSPF process so the new ID is used.

• Network type change does not solve duplicate router identity; it only changes OSPF behavior on the link.
• Cable replacement is unsupported because both interfaces are up/up and OSPF reaches FULL state.
• Loopback-only change may not take effect until the OSPF process restarts, so it is incomplete.

Continue with full practice

Use the Cisco CCNA 200-301 v2.0 Practice Test page for the full IT Mastery practice bank, mixed-topic practice, timed mock exams, explanations, and web/mobile app access.

Try Cisco CCNA 200-301 v2.0 on Web View Cisco CCNA 200-301 v2.0 Practice Test

Related focused pages

• Free Cisco CCNA 200-301 v2.0 Full-Length Practice Exam
• Network Infrastructure and Connectivity
• Switching and Network Access
• Network Services and Security
• AI, Network Operations and Management

Free review resource

Read the Cisco CCNA 200-301 v2.0 Cheat Sheet on Tech Exam Lexicon, then return to IT Mastery for timed practice.