Refer to the exhibit. CE1 and CE2 are iBGP neighbors in AS 65516. All traffic that exits AS 65516 must use the link from CE1 to PE1. CE1 is advertising a higher local preference to CE2, but traffic…

Question

Exhibit

Options

• AAdd the lower local-preference value on PE2 towards CE2.
• BConfigure CE1 to send routes to CE2 with a higher MED.
• CConfigure CE1 to send routes to CE2 with a higher weight.
• DAdd the next-hop self command to the CE1 neighbor statement for CE2.

• A
  78% (39)
• B
  12% (6)
• C
  6% (3)
• D
  4% (2)

Explanation

Local preference is an iBGP attribute used within an AS to influence outbound path selection - higher local preference wins. CE1 is advertising a higher local preference to CE2 for the route through PE1. However, CE2 is still choosing PE2. This happens when PE2 is also setting a local preference value for routes learned from PE2 that equals or exceeds the value CE1 is advertising. The fix is to configure PE2 to advertise a lower local-preference value to CE2, making the PE2 path less attractive and allowing CE1's higher-LP advertisement to win. Option B (higher MED) affects inbound path selection for external peers, not iBGP path selection within the AS. Option C (weight) is Cisco-proprietary and local to a single router - CE1 cannot send weight to CE2. Option D (next-hop self) fixes next-hop reachability issues, but the question already shows CE2 can reach PE2 directly, so reachability is not the problem.

No community discussion yet for this question.