Which two statements are true about creating OSPF areas? (Choose two.)

Samuel O.Jun 27, 2026

B and C are your correct answers here. The whole point of carving OSPF into multiple areas is to contain LSA flooding so routers are not running SPF calculations against a massive link-state database every time something flickers on the other side of the country, which directly reduces CPU load. And yes, area boundaries map very naturally to geography or administrative divisions, which is exactly how I saw it deployed when I moved into network ops, one area per regional office with Area 0 tying them together at the hub. A is backwards because multiple areas actually require an ABR to connect them, not the other way around. D is just noise, an ASBR is only in the picture when you are redistributing routes from an external AS into OSPF, and that has nothing to do with how many internal areas you have.

Viktor S.Jun 26, 2026

B and C are correct, and the reasoning is straightforward once you actually think about how OSPF works instead of just scanning answer keys. Dividing a network into multiple areas contains LSA flooding within each area, so a topology change in one area does not force every router in the entire domain to rerun Dijkstra, which directly cuts CPU load. C is just architectural reality: area boundaries almost always follow geography or administrative groupings, and that is a core reason multi-area OSPF exists. A is dead wrong because multiple areas require ABRs to stitch them together, and D is wrong because an ASBR is only needed when you are redistributing routes from outside the OSPF domain into it, which has nothing to do with how many areas you have internally.

Haruki E.Jun 27, 2026

Went with B and C, but I will admit I glanced at A first and thought it might be a trick that goes the other way. Then I remembered that multiple areas do not eliminate the ABR requirement, they actually create the need for one, because something has to sit on the boundary between area 0 and any non-backbone area and summarize or filter LSAs between them. Once that clicked, A dropped out immediately. The real gains from segmenting into multiple areas are that each router only runs SPF against its own area topology, so a flap in area 2 does not force every router in area 1 to recompute the entire LSDB, which is exactly what B describes. C holds up just as cleanly, since area design follows whatever boundary makes sense operationally, whether that is a data center pod, a campus building, or a geographic region, and the exam is testing whether you know that OSPF areas are an administrative segmentation tool, not just a performance knob.

Bao N.Jun 20, 2026

Kept picking A until I remembered ABRs connect the areas you just made.

Toby R.Jun 25, 2026

I kept second-guessing myself on A because I thought more areas meant more ABRs were optional, but then I remembered ABRs are literally required to connect areas to the backbone, so A is just flat wrong. B and C clicked when I thought about how smaller LSDBs per area mean less SPF calculation overhead, and geographic segmentation is one of the main real-world reasons people break up a single area in the first place.

Bartosz H.Jun 27, 2026

B and C, though "reduces CPU load" only holds if you contain the LSA flood scope.

Mei-Ling H.Jun 11, 2026

B and C, areas reduce CPU load and allow geographic division. I saw this exact question last month and almost picked A until I remembered ABR becomes required, not eliminated, when you split areas. That "eliminates" in A should have been my first red flag.

Dervla O.Jun 5, 2026

The stem is asking what you gain by splitting into multiple areas, so A and D should fall off immediately. A is the classic trap, it reverses the truth: you need an ABR precisely because you have multiple areas, so that one is gone in the first pass. D is similar misdirection, an ASBR handles external routes and has nothing to do with how many internal areas you define. Now, B is technically a nuance worth noting because the CPU reduction is not automatic or universal, it applies because LSA flooding is contained within an area, which shrinks the SPF calculation domain for intra-area routers, so the wording is defensible. C is straightforward and almost always shows up in the design rationale for large enterprise deployments. Eliminate A and D early, then confirm B and C.

Yusuf A.Jun 27, 2026

Thought A was right since "multiple areas, no ABR needed" sounded logical, but my senior reminded me ABRs connect areas, so A is backwards. B clicks because smaller LSDBs mean less SPF recalculation, and C is just how WAN teams actually carve up OSPF by region.

Ingrid P.Jun 26, 2026

B and C, confirmed. Smaller per-area LSDBs mean less frequent SPF recalculation.