Refer to the exhibit. A junior engineer updated a branch router configuration. Immediately after the change, the engineer receives calls from the help desk that branch personnel cannot reach any…

Adding another `deny` statement at a lower sequence number would not resolve the issue of the implicit `deny all` blocking all valid routes.

Modifying the `ip prefix-list 102` with a `permit 0.0.0.0/32 le 32` at `seq 15` would add a permit-all entry *after* the specific permit, but since the route-map's `deny 10` matches this prefix-list, it would then deny all traffic, worsening the problem.

Modifying the `ip prefix-list 102` with a `permit 0.0.0.0/32 le 32` at `seq 5` would cause everything to match `prefix-list 102`, which is then used by `deny 10` in the route-map, resulting in all routes being denied.

The existing `route-map FILTER-IN` only has a `deny 10` statement that matches `10.1.1.100/32`. Due to the implicit `deny all` at the end of every route-map, any route that does not match statement 10 is denied. Adding `route-map FILTER-IN permit 20` creates a permit statement at the end of the route-map, which will permit all other routes that did not match the `deny 10` statement, thereby restoring network service while still blocking `10.1.1.100/32`.