Which two differences should be considered when deciding whether to implement to implement routing policies or route maps? (Choose two.)

Question

Options

• ASequences are added after implementing a route map, but routing policies must be reconfigured
• BRoute maps are implemented using hierarchical policies, but routing policies must be implemented
• CRoute maps require an explicit deny at the end of the sequence, but routing policies have an implicit
• DRoute policies require sequence numbers, but route maps are implemented without sequencing.
• ERoute maps are supported in Cisco 10S Software and routing policies are supported in Cisco IOS

• A
  93% (26)
• B
  4% (1)
• C
  4% (1)

Explanation

Two key platform-specific differences distinguish route maps from routing policies: (A) In Cisco IOS, route map sequence numbers allow inserting new entries between existing ones without rewriting the whole map. In Cisco IOS XR, route-policies are monolithic-any change requires editing and recommitting the entire policy definition. (E) Route maps are the IOS (classic/traditional) construct for policy-based routing and BGP attribute manipulation, while routing policies (route-policy language with RPL) are the IOS XR equivalent. The other options are incorrect: IOS XR routing policies do have an implicit deny, route maps do use sequence numbers, and the hierarchical policy distinction describes IOS XR correctly-not route maps.

No community discussion yet for this question.