An engineer is designing a Layer 3-enabled access layer. Which design recommendation must the engineer consider when deploying EIGRP routing within the access layer?

Question

Options

• AUse the First Hop Redundancy Protocol on access layer switches.
• BImplement floating static routes on access switches for redundant links.
• CEnable multiple uplinks from each access switch stack to the distribution switches.
• DConfigure all edge access layer switches to use a stub routing feature.

• A
  4% (2)
• B
  5% (3)
• C
  14% (8)
• D
  77% (43)

Explanation

In a Layer 3 access layer running EIGRP, access switches should be configured as EIGRP stub routers. Stub routing tells other routers that the stub device only has locally connected and summary routes, and should never be used as a transit path. This has two key benefits: it limits the scope of EIGRP Query messages (queries stop at the stub boundary instead of propagating throughout the network), and it reduces unnecessary routing table overhead on access switches. Option A (FHRP) is relevant for redundancy in a Layer 2 access design, not Layer 3. Option B (floating static routes) adds complexity without the query-limiting benefits of stub. Option C (multiple uplinks) is a physical redundancy recommendation, not an EIGRP-specific design requirement.

No community discussion yet for this question.