Which two design aspects should a metro service provider consider when planning to deploy REP for his backbone? (Choose two.)

Question

Options

• ATwo REP segments can be connected redundantly at two points, one connection will be blocked as
• BUDLD can be enabled on REP interfaces to detect unidirectional failures.
• CThe guaranteed convergence recovery time is less than 50 ms for the local segment.
• DA REP segment is limited to a maximum of seven devices.
• EVLAN load balancing for optimal bandwidth usage is supported in any REP segment.

Explanation

Options A and B are the correct answers.

A is correct because REP allows two segments to be interconnected at two points for redundancy, but to prevent bridging loops, one of those connections (the alternate port) will be placed in a blocked state - this is fundamental REP loop-prevention behavior that planners must account for in backbone design.

B is correct because UDLD (Unidirectional Link Detection) is explicitly supported alongside REP and is recommended on REP interfaces to catch unidirectional link failures that REP alone cannot detect - a critical consideration for metro backbone reliability.

C is wrong because REP does not guarantee sub-50 ms convergence; the ~50 ms figure applies to local segment link failures under ideal conditions, not as a blanket guarantee across all failure scenarios.

D is wrong because the REP segment limit is not 7 devices - Cisco supports up to 16 REP-capable interfaces per segment, making "seven" a fabricated constraint.

E is wrong because VLAN load balancing in REP is not available on any segment - it requires a primary edge port and a specific open-ring topology with a blocked alternate port; not all segment configurations support it.

Memory tip: Think "Alternate port Blocks, Bring UDLD" - the two design truths of REP are that redundant connections result in one blocked port (A) and that UDLD supplements REP's failure detection (B).

No community discussion yet for this question.