Refer to the exhibit. A network engineer is configuring a new router for iBGP to improve the capacity of a growing network. The router must establish an iBGP peer relationship with its neighbor. The…

Question

Exhibit

Options

• AImplement multicast routing on the router to support BGP hellos.
• BConfigure the AS number for the router to share with its iBGP peers.
• CConfigure the new router as an iBGP route reflector to support multiple iBGP peers.
• DActivate the BGP peers under the correct address family on the router.

• A
  3% (1)
• B
  15% (5)
• C
  6% (2)
• D
  76% (26)

Explanation

Activating BGP peers under the correct address family (option D) is the missing step because, in modern BGP configurations, simply defining a neighbor with neighbor x.x.x.x remote-as is not enough - you must explicitly activate that neighbor under the appropriate address family (e.g., address-family ipv4 unicast) before the peer session can exchange prefixes. Option A is wrong because BGP uses TCP (port 179), not multicast - no multicast routing is needed for BGP hellos. Option B is wrong because in iBGP, all peers already share the same AS number by definition, so there is nothing new to configure there. Option C is wrong because a route reflector is only needed when you have many iBGP peers and want to avoid a full mesh - a single new peer relationship doesn't require it.

Memory tip: Think of address-family activation as "flipping the switch" - you can wire up a neighbor all day, but the BGP session won't pass traffic for a given protocol until you activate it inside the right address family. If a peer is defined but not exchanging routes, activation is almost always the culprit.

No community discussion yet for this question.