What are two drawbacks of implementing a link-state routing protocol? (Choose two.)

Question

Exhibit

Options

• AThe sequencing and acknowledgment of link-state packets
• BThe requirement for a hierarchical IP addressing scheme for optimal functionality
• CThe high volume of link-state advertisements in a converged network
• DThe high demand on router resources to run the link-state routing algorithm
• Ethe large size of the topology table listing all advertised routes in the converged network

• A
  4% (2)
• B
  7% (3)
• C
  2% (1)
• D
  87% (39)

Explanation

Link-state routing protocols (like OSPF and IS-IS) have two significant drawbacks: (D) They place high demand on router CPU and memory resources because every router must run the Dijkstra SPF (Shortest Path First) algorithm to build a loop-free tree from the full topology database. This is computationally intensive compared to distance-vector protocols. (E) Every router maintains a complete topology table (LSDB - Link-State Database) containing LSAs from all routers in the area, which can become very large in big networks and consume significant memory. Option A is incorrect - sequencing and acknowledgment is a feature, not a drawback, as it ensures reliable LSA flooding. Option B is incorrect - link-state protocols actually work well with both flat and hierarchical addressing. Option C is incorrect - in a converged network, LSA traffic is minimal; flooding only occurs when topology changes.

No community discussion yet for this question.