Which of the following descriptions about OSPF DR/BDR is wrong?

Question

Options

• AEven if the priority of the two directly connected routers is set to 255, there will still be DR and BDR elected between them
• BIn the process of BDR/DR negotiation, the routers participating in the negotiation will think that they are BDR.
• CWhen neighbor state is Init, DR/BDR will not be negotiated between routers.
• DIf both DR/BDR elections fail, the neighbor status of both parties will remain in the 2-way state

• A
  11% (3)
• B
  81% (22)
• C
  7% (2)

Explanation

Option B is the wrong statement because during DR/BDR election, each router initially declares itself as the DR (not BDR) in its Hello packets - specifically by listing its own Router ID as the DR candidate. The election algorithm then compares priorities and Router IDs to determine which router wins DR and which wins BDR; no router pre-assumes BDR status during the process.

Why the distractors are correct (and therefore not the answer):

• A is correct - on a broadcast/multi-access segment, DR and BDR are always elected regardless of priority values; priority only determines who wins, not whether an election occurs.
• C is correct - DR/BDR negotiation only begins after reaching the 2-Way state (when both routers have seen each other in Hello packets); in Init state, bidirectional communication isn't confirmed yet.
• D is correct - routers that don't win DR or BDR remain in 2-Way state with each other (DROther neighbors), forming no full adjacency between themselves.

Memory tip: Think of it as an election where everyone initially runs for President (DR), not Vice President (BDR) - the loser gets consoled with VP (BDR). Option B reverses this, which is the trap.

No community discussion yet for this question.