Refer to the exhibit. An engineer is configuring Inter-VSAN routing for two Cisco MDS switches. The FSPF cost between the switches is 500, and the Cisco MDS core virtualizes an IVR NAT domain as…

Question

Exhibit

Options

• AThe MDS-Core simulates an IVR NAT, and the FSPF cost is 500.
• BThe MDS-Core simulates an IVR NAT, and increases the cost to 501.
• CThe MDS-Core simulates an IVR NAT, and decreases the cost to 400.
• DThe MDS-Core simulates an IVR NAT, and increases the cost to 600.

• A
  10% (2)
• B
  70% (14)
• C
  15% (3)
• D
  5% (1)

Explanation

Option B is correct because when the Cisco MDS core virtualizes (simulates) an IVR NAT domain, it automatically increments the FSPF cost by 1 - from 500 to 501. This deliberate cost bump ensures that real fabric paths are preferred over simulated IVR paths when both exist, preventing suboptimal routing.

Why the distractors are wrong:

• A is wrong because it claims the cost stays at 500 - it ignores the mandatory +1 increment that IVR simulation applies.
• C is wrong because IVR simulation never decreases FSPF cost; it only adds to it (and 400 would be a 100-unit drop, which has no basis in IVR behavior).
• D is wrong because the increment is only +1, not +100 - a cost of 600 would represent a massive, unsupported penalty.

Memory tip: Think of IVR NAT simulation as adding a "virtual hop tax" of exactly 1 - just enough to make the simulated path less preferred than a real path, but not so much that it becomes unusable. "Virtual = +1."

No community discussion yet for this question.