Regarding the following configuration commands for issuing default routes for each protocol, which of the description is wrong?

Question

Options

• AIn the ISIS protocol, the default-route-advertise command is used to advertise the default routing information to neighbors
• BIn static routing, the ip route- static default preferred command is used to generate a default route on the current router
• CIn the OSPF protocol, the default-route-advertised command is used to advertise the default routing information to the common OSPF area
• DIn the BGP protocol, the default-route-imported command is used to enable the function of importing provincial routes into the BGP routing table

• A
  4% (1)
• B
  80% (20)
• C
  12% (3)
• D
  4% (1)

Explanation

Option B is wrong because the stated command syntax is incorrect. For static default routes on Huawei VRP routers, the correct command is ip route-static 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 <next-hop-address> - using the explicit destination network 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0, not the nonexistent default preferred keyword combination. The phrasing "default preferred" doesn't correspond to valid static routing syntax.

Why the other options are correct (and therefore not the answer):

• A is accurate: default-route-advertise is the legitimate Huawei ISIS command to inject a default route toward ISIS neighbors.
• C is accurate: default-route-advertise in OSPF process view correctly distributes a default route into the OSPF domain (regular/common areas).
• D is accurate: default-route-imported in BGP view enables importing a default route into the BGP routing table, which is a real and commonly tested feature.

Memory tip: For static routes, always think explicit network address - static routing has no dynamic protocol to speak for it, so you must spell out 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 yourself. The dynamic protocols (ISIS, OSPF, BGP) each have their own default-route-* subcommand because they can negotiate with neighbors - but static routing cannot, making the command structure fundamentally different.

No community discussion yet for this question.