Refer to the exhibit. Which configuration allows Customer2 hosts to access the FTP server of Customer1 that has the IP address of 192.168.1.200?

Question

Exhibits

Options

• Aip route vrf Customerl 172.16.1.0 255.255.255.0 172.16.1.1 global
• Bip route vrf Customerl 172.16.1.0 255.255.255.0 172.16.1.1 Customer2
• Cip route vrf Customerl 172.16.1.0 255.255.255.0 172.16.1.1 Customerl
• Dip route vrf Customerl 172.16.1.1 255.255.255.255 172.16.1.1 global

• A
  77% (20)
• B
  8% (2)
• C
  4% (1)
• D
  12% (3)

Explanation

VRF Route Leaking Explanation

Option A is correct because when a host in Customer2 needs to reach Customer1's FTP server (192.168.1.200), the router must know how to route back to the Customer2 network (172.16.1.0/24). The ip route vrf Customer1 172.16.1.0 255.255.255.0 172.16.1.1 global command installs a static route inside Customer1's VRF pointing to the Customer2 subnet, using the global routing table as the exit path - this is the essence of VRF route leaking between a VRF and the global table.

• Option B is wrong because specifying Customer2 as the exit VRF would attempt to leak into Customer2's VRF, which is not where the return path needs to resolve.
• Option C is wrong because pointing back to Customer1 itself creates a routing loop within the same VRF rather than leaking traffic out.
• Option D is wrong because it specifies a /32 host route for the next-hop IP rather than the correct /24 network for the Customer2 subnet.

Memory Tip: Think of the global keyword as a "bridge" between a VRF and the outside world - when traffic needs to cross VRF boundaries into the global table, always append global to the static route command inside the originating VRF.

No community discussion yet for this question.