Which statement best describes the full state when forming an OSPF adjacency between two peers?

Question

Exhibit

Options

• ACommunication is bi-directional between the two peers.
• BThe LSDBs on both routers are identical.
• CA primary and secondary relationship is negotiated.
• DAll LSA types have been received from the peer.

• A
  6% (2)
• B
  91% (31)
• C
  3% (1)

Explanation

Option B is correct because the OSPF Full state specifically marks the completion of LSDB synchronization - both routers have exchanged all necessary LSAs via DBD, Request, and Update packets, and their databases are now identical for that adjacency.

Why the distractors are wrong:

• A describes the 2-Way state, where routers have seen themselves in each other's Hello packets, confirming bidirectional communication - this happens much earlier in the process.
• C describes the ExStart state, where the master/slave (not primary/secondary) relationship is negotiated to control DBD packet sequencing.
• D is a tempting trap - the Loading state is when a router is still requesting missing LSAs; Full is only reached after all outstanding requests are satisfied, and it's about all needed LSAs, not necessarily every LSA type.

Memory tip: Map the OSPF states as a story - 2-Way = we see each other, ExStart = who goes first?, Exchange = swapping catalogs (DBDs), Loading = filling in the gaps, Full = libraries match. "Full" = fully identical databases.

No community discussion yet for this question.