Click the exhibit. Routers RR1 are RR2 are redundant route reflectors for clients R3 and R4. Which of the following is a valid configuration on router RR1?

The correct answer is C. RR1>config>router>bgp# info group "AS 65540 iBGP" peer-as 65540 neighbor 10.16.10.2 exit neighbor 10.16.10.3 cluster 10.16.10.1 exit neighbor 10.16.10.4 cluster 10.16.10.1 exit. Option C correctly treats RR2 (10.16.10.2) as a peer route reflector - a regular iBGP neighbor with no cluster statement - while designating R3 (10.16.10.3) and R4 (10.16.10.4) as RR clients using the shared cluster ID 10.16.10.1. This is the correct model for redundant RRs…

BGP Configuration

Question

Click the exhibit.
Routers RR1 are RR2 are redundant route reflectors for clients R3 and R4. Which of the following is a valid configuration on router RR1?

Options

ARR1>config>router>bgp# info group "AS 65540 iBGP" cluster 10.16.10.1 peer-as 65540 neighbor 10.16.10.2 exit neighbor 10.16.10.3 exit neighbor 10.16.10.4 exit
BRR1>config>router>bgp# info group "AS 65540 iBGP" peer-as 65540 neighbor 10.16.10.2 cluster 10.16.10.2 exit neighbor 10.16.10.3 cluster 10.16.10.1 exit neighbor 10.16.10.4 cluster 10.16.10.1 exit
CRR1>config>router>bgp# info group "AS 65540 iBGP" peer-as 65540 neighbor 10.16.10.2 exit neighbor 10.16.10.3 cluster 10.16.10.1 exit neighbor 10.16.10.4 cluster 10.16.10.1 exit
DRR1>config>router>bgp# info group "AS 65540 iBGP" peer-as 65540 neighbor 10.16.10.3 cluster 10.16.10.1 exit neighbor 10.16.10.4 cluster 10.16.10.1 exit

How the community answered

(35 responses)

A
6% (2)
B
14% (5)
C
77% (27)
D
3% (1)

Explanation

Option C correctly treats RR2 (10.16.10.2) as a peer route reflector - a regular iBGP neighbor with no cluster statement - while designating R3 (10.16.10.3) and R4 (10.16.10.4) as RR clients using the shared cluster ID 10.16.10.1. This is the correct model for redundant RRs: both reflectors share the same cluster ID on their clients, and peer with each other as normal iBGP speakers.

A is wrong because placing cluster at the group level applies it to all neighbors including RR2, incorrectly making the peer reflector a client of its own cluster.
B is wrong because it assigns RR2 its own cluster ID, which would make RR2 a client of RR1 - peer RRs must not be configured as clients of each other.
D is wrong because it omits RR2 as a neighbor entirely; the two redundant RRs must maintain an iBGP session with each other to exchange full routing information.

Memory tip: "Peer RRs are peers, not clients." The redundant reflector gets no cluster statement - only the actual clients (R3, R4) do, and they both share the same cluster ID to signal they belong to the same logical cluster.

Topics

#Route Reflectors#Cluster ID#iBGP Configuration#RR Redundancy

Community Discussion

No community discussion yet for this question.

Full 4A0-102 Practice