In which two ways does the routing protocol OSPF differ from EIGRP? (Choose two.)

Question

Options

• AOSPF supports an unlimited number of hops. EIGRP supports a maximum of 255 hops.
• BOSPF provides shorter convergence time than EIGRP.
• COSPF is distance vector protocol. EIGRP is a link-state protocol.
• DOSPF supports only equal-cost load balancing. EIGRP supports unequal-cost load balancing.
• EOSPF supports unequal-cost load balancing. EIGRP supports only equal-cost load balancing.

• A
  87% (27)
• B
  10% (3)
• E
  3% (1)

Explanation

OSPF vs EIGRP Key Differences

A is correct because OSPF has no hop count limitation, while EIGRP has a configurable maximum of 255 hops (default 100), making OSPF better suited for very large networks. D is correct because OSPF can only perform equal-cost load balancing (traffic split across paths with identical metrics), whereas EIGRP's Feasible Successor mechanism allows it to load balance across unequal-cost paths using the variance command.

Why the distractors are wrong:

• B is incorrect - EIGRP actually converges faster than OSPF because it pre-calculates backup paths (Feasible Successors) and doesn't need to flood LSAs or run SPF calculations
• C is completely backwards - OSPF is the link-state protocol, and EIGRP is an advanced distance-vector (hybrid) protocol
• E is the reverse of D - it incorrectly swaps which protocol supports each load-balancing type

Memory Tip: Think "OSPF is Equal, EIGRP is Flexible" - OSPF treats all paths equally (same cost only), while EIGRP is flexible enough to use unequal paths. Also remember "EIGRP Has Hops, OSPF Does Not" - EIGRP has a hop limit (255), OSPF does not.

No community discussion yet for this question.