Refer to the exhibit.
R1 is configured with VRF-Lite and can ping R2. R2 is fully configured, but it has no active EIGRP neighbors in vrf Yellow. If the configuration of r2 is complete, then which issue prevents the EIGRP 100 neighbor relationship in vrf Yellow from forming?
A. The interface IP address are not in the same subnet.
B. The no auto-summary command is preventing the EIGRP neighbor relationship from forming.
C. EIGRP 100 network 192.168.10/24 is configured in the global routing table on R1.
D. There is a Layer 1 issue that prevents the EIGRP neighbor relationship from forming.
Tested in lab and it is C the answer
A no both interfaces are in the same subnet
B, no. summarization will send the routes *after the relationship is established
D no. layer 1 issue ping is working
Right configuration should be:
router eigrp 100
!
address-family ipv4 vrf Yellow
network 192.168.1.1 0.0.0.0
autonomous-system 100
So C is right answer.
It should be B
So wrong.
C is the right answer.
It should be b cause if this was removed the eigrp network would be 192.168.1.0/24 and allowing neighbor
So wrong.
C is the right answer.
C?
https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/support/docs/interfaces-modules/catalyst-6500-series-multilayer-switch-feature-card/112245-eigrp-vrf.html
C
https://networklessons.com/cisco/ccie-routing-switching-written/vrf-lite-route-leaking
https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/support/docs/multiprotocol-label-switching-mpls/multiprotocol-label-switching-vpns-mpls-vpns/47807-routeleaking.html#global