Click the exhibit. Assume all router-IDs are properly configured, and link-local IPv6 addresses are used to establish the eBGP-sessions. Which of the following is the MINIMAL configuration required…

Question

Options

• Agroup "IPv6_IBGP" family ipv6 next-hop-self peer-as 65540 neighbor 2001:DB8:2::2 exit exit
• Bgroup "IPv6_IBGP" next-hop-self type internal peer-as 65540 neighbor 2001:DB8:2::2 exit exit
• Cgroup "IPv6_IBGP" family ipv6 peer-as 65540 neighbor 2001:DB8:2::2 exit exit
• Dgroup "IPv6_IBGP" family ipv6 next-hop-self type internal neighbor 2001:DB8:2::2 exit exit

• A
  17% (5)
• B
  7% (2)
• C
  70% (21)
• D
  7% (2)

Explanation

Option C provides the three elements genuinely required for Router A to establish an iBGP IPv6 session with Router B: family ipv6 activates the IPv6 address family so that IPv6 prefixes are negotiated and carried, peer-as 65540 identifies the peer as belonging to the same AS (making it iBGP - no type internal needed when peer-as already implies it), and neighbor 2001:DB8:2::2 specifies the actual peer address. Option A is wrong because next-hop-self is an optional policy attribute - it may be useful when eBGP-learned link-local next-hops must be replaced, but it is not required for the session itself, violating the "minimal" constraint. Option B is wrong because it omits family ipv6, which is essential - without activating the IPv6 address family, no IPv6 prefixes will be exchanged at all; it also redundantly combines type internal with peer-as. Option D is wrong because it includes the unnecessary next-hop-self and is missing peer-as, making the configuration both incomplete and non-minimal.

Memory tip: For iBGP IPv6 groups, think "Three things to start: what to carry (family ipv6), who to peer with (peer-as), and where to connect (neighbor)." Anything else - next-hop-self, type internal - is either redundant or situational, not minimal.

No community discussion yet for this question.