I've got a feeling this question is trying to 'ispi' me up. But I'm not falling for it! B is the way to go. The inet. 0 route table will be imported into the ispi . inet. 0 route table. Boom, nailed it!
Ah, the classic 'import' vs 'overwrite' dilemma. I'm going with B. The inet. 0 route table will be imported into the ispi . inet. 0 route table. It's like a digital game of musical chairs, but with route tables!
This is a tricky one. I'm leaning towards D, but I'm not 100% confident. The ISPI . inet. 0 route table will be imported into the inet. 0 route table. Seems logical, but I could be missing something. Time to double-check my notes!
Hmm, I'm not sure about this one. The wording is a bit confusing. I'm going to go with C just to be safe. The ISPI . inet. 0 route table will be completely overwritten by the inet. o route table. Wait, did I misread that last option? Oops, my bad!
Since the question states that the ispi . inet. 0 route table has no routes, I'm pretty sure the correct answer is B. The inet. 0 route table will be imported into the ispi . inet. 0 route table. Seems straightforward enough.
Noel
1 months agoLoise
9 days agoCassie
23 days agoSherrell
28 days agoAltha
1 months agoErnie
1 months agoLemuel
1 months agoKristeen
2 months agoAntonio
27 days agoLindsay
1 months agoJenise
2 months agoAntonio
2 months agoJenise
2 months ago