Company ABC grew organically and now their single-area OSPF network has an unacceptably slow convergence time after a topology change. To address the slow convergence time, they want to introduce a mu

Question

Options

• ARouting is suboptimal
• BSPF calculation takes longer
• COperations complexity is increased
• DMore memory is needed across the routers on the network

• A
  67% (29)
• B
  5% (2)
• C
  12% (5)
• D
  16% (7)

Explanation

Route summarization at ABRs reduces LSA flooding and shrinks the LSDB, which is exactly what speeds up convergence - but the trade-off is suboptimal routing: summary prefixes hide the granular topology, so routers may select a longer path to a specific destination when a shorter one exists but is obscured by the aggregate. B is wrong because multi-area OSPF makes SPF faster, not slower - each area runs SPF independently on a smaller topology, which is a core benefit of the redesign. C is wrong because while operational complexity does increase slightly, it is not the primary concern specific to address summarization - it's a general multi-area trade-off, not a summarization side effect. D is wrong because multi-area OSPF reduces memory requirements; routers only store their own area's LSDB rather than the entire network's.

Memory tip: Think "Summary = Sacrifice precision for speed." Summarization buys you convergence performance by hiding detail, and hidden detail means routers can't always find the true best path - suboptimal routing is the price you pay.

No community discussion yet for this question.