Deal of The Day! Hurry Up, Grab the Special Discount - Save 25% - Ends In 00:00:00 Coupon code: SAVE25
Welcome to Pass4Success

- Free Preparation Discussions
Mail Us support@pass4success.com
Location US
Mob_nav_barsMENU

Nokia 4A0-103 Exam - Topic 4 Question 65 Discussion

Actual exam question for Nokia's 4A0-103 exam
Question #: 65
Topic #: 4
[All 4A0-103 Questions]

Click on the exhibit button below:

Consider the following:

- Router R2 is an ABR in OSPF Areas 0 and 1.

- Router R2 advertises the aggregate prefix 10.10.10.0/24 into Area 1.

- Router R1 in Area 0 generates LDP labels for FECs 10.10.102/31 and 10.10.10.4/31

Router R3 in Area 1 places these FECs in its LIB, but it does not place them in its LFIB. What can you do on router R3 to make it populate these labels in its LFIB?

Show Suggested Answer Hide Answer
Suggested Answer: B

by Devorah at Feb 07, 2023, 01:19 AM

Limited Time Offer

25%

Off

Get Premium 4A0-103 Questions as Interactive Web-Based Practice Test or PDF

Contribute your Thoughts:

0/2000 characters
Submit Cancel
Lucy
5 months ago
Just to clarify, R3 needs to accept those FECs to populate LFIB.
upvoted 0 times
...
Lindy
6 months ago
Wait, why would disabling exact match help? Sounds off.
upvoted 0 times
...
Titus
6 months ago
Not sure about that, C might be better.
upvoted 0 times
...
Maybelle
6 months ago
I think option B is the way to go!
upvoted 0 times
...
Ronald
6 months ago
R2 is definitely an ABR for OSPF Areas 0 and 1.
upvoted 0 times
...
Jacinta
6 months ago
Disabling LDP exact match sounds familiar, but I can't recall if that would actually help with getting those labels into the LFIB.
upvoted 0 times
...
Marlon
6 months ago
I practiced a similar question where creating an import policy helped with FECs, so that could be a viable option here too.
upvoted 0 times
...
Ahmad
6 months ago
I think enabling LDP aggregate prefix match might be the solution, but I need to double-check how that affects the LFIB population.
upvoted 0 times
...
Cristy
7 months ago
I remember something about LDP and how it interacts with OSPF, but I'm not sure if disabling route summarization is the right move here.
upvoted 0 times
...
Carolann
7 months ago
Ah, this is a tricky one. I'm a bit confused between the different permission sets here. I'll have to review the details of each option to make the best guess.
upvoted 0 times
...
Carolynn
7 months ago
Hmm, I think I might know the answer to this one. If the Interactive Client is only being used for controlling and monitoring the Blue Prism environment, and not running automations locally, then the "Sun the process engine" setting should be disabled, right?
upvoted 0 times
...
Colene
7 months ago
The country of origin requirement is an interesting detail. I'll make sure to double-check that in the exam.
upvoted 0 times
...
Francine
7 months ago
I think system testing being delayed makes sense, especially with all the new features being added. It might be a significant risk.
upvoted 0 times
...
Rosalind
12 months ago
Ah, the joys of OSPF and LDP! Option C is the way to go, unless you want your router to be as lost as a sheep in a wolf pack.
upvoted 0 times
Kristel
10 months ago
Disabling route summarization on router R3 could also be a possible solution to populate the labels in the LFIB.
upvoted 0 times
...
Cyril
10 months ago
I think enabling LDP aggregate prefix match might also work in this scenario.
upvoted 0 times
...
Florinda
11 months ago
I agree, option C is the best choice to make sure the labels are populated in the LFIB.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Silvana
1 year ago
Haha, 'Disable LDP exact match' - that sounds like a recipe for disaster! I'll go with Option C, just to be safe.
upvoted 0 times
Denny
10 months ago
Let's go with Option C then, better safe than sorry!
upvoted 0 times
...
Lenna
10 months ago
Creating an import policy to accept those FECs is a good way to go.
upvoted 0 times
...
Heike
10 months ago
Option C seems like the safest choice to ensure the labels are populated in the LFIB.
upvoted 0 times
...
Ashlyn
10 months ago
I agree, disabling LDP exact match doesn't sound like a good idea.
upvoted 0 times
...
Cherry
11 months ago
Let's go with Option C then.
upvoted 0 times
...
Aron
11 months ago
Creating an import policy seems like a good solution.
upvoted 0 times
...
Avery
11 months ago
I think Option C is the safest choice here.
upvoted 0 times
...
Kayleigh
11 months ago
I agree, disabling LDP exact match does sound risky.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Eric
1 year ago
I'm not sure about this one. Disabling route summarization on R3 or enabling LDP aggregate prefix match don't seem relevant to the problem statement.
upvoted 0 times
Sonia
11 months ago
C) Create an import policy to accept these FECs
upvoted 0 times
...
Gayla
12 months ago
A) Disable route summarization on router R3
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Herminia
1 year ago
I'm not sure about the answer. Maybe disabling LDP exact match on the specified FECs could also be a solution.
upvoted 0 times
...
Dierdre
1 year ago
I agree with Dominque. Enabling LDP aggregate prefix match might also work.
upvoted 0 times
...
Mendy
1 year ago
Option C looks like the correct answer. We need to create an import policy on R3 to accept the FECs advertised by R1 in Area 0.
upvoted 0 times
Shanice
11 months ago
Let's go with option C then.
upvoted 0 times
...
Margurite
11 months ago
That makes sense, we just need to accept the FECs from R1 in Area 0.
upvoted 0 times
...
Gertude
11 months ago
Yeah, creating an import policy on R3 should do the trick.
upvoted 0 times
...
Lynelle
12 months ago
I think option C is the way to go.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Dominque
1 year ago
I think the answer is C) Create an import policy to accept these FECs.
upvoted 0 times
...

Save Cancel