Assuming that "client1" and "client2" are directly-connected networks, what is the result of executing the following BGP export policy? entry 10 from protocol direct exit action accept community add…

Question

Options

• AOnly entry 10 is executed for "client1" and "client2".
• BEntries 10 and 20 are executed for "client1", and entries 10 and 30 are executed for "client2".
• CEntries 10 and 20 are executed for "client1", and entries 10, 20 and 30 are executed for "client2".
• DEntry 10 is executed for directly-connected routes, entry 20 for "client1" and entry 30 for "client2".

• A
  70% (14)
• B
  5% (1)
• C
  10% (2)
• D
  15% (3)

Explanation

Option A is correct because BGP export policies use first-match semantics - once a route matches an entry and an action (accept/reject) is taken, processing stops immediately and no further entries are evaluated. Since "client1" and "client2" are directly-connected networks, their routes are redistributed via protocol direct, which means Entry 10 matches them first and accepts them with community "North"; the policy never reaches entries 20 or 30.

Why the distractors fail:

• B and C incorrectly assume multiple entries execute for the same route - this would require an explicit next-entry or next-policy action to continue processing past a match, which is absent here.
• D implies entry 10 only applies to other direct routes while entries 20/30 handle client1/client2 separately - but client1 and client2 are direct routes, so entry 10 catches them before entries 20/30 are ever reached.

Memory tip: Think of BGP route policies like a firewall ACL - the first matching rule wins and exits. If you want multiple communities applied or want later entries to run, you must explicitly tell the policy to keep going (e.g., next-entry). Absent that, it's always "match → act → done."

No community discussion yet for this question.