Which of the following descriptions about the linkage between VRRP and interface status to monitor the uplink interface is wrong? (Multiple choice)

Question

Options

• AIf it is not linked with the connection status, it will easily lead to traffic black holes
• BYou can monitor the upstream interface by configuring the priority on the primary backup device
• CYou can monitor the uplink interface by configuring the priority on the Master device
• DWhen configuring and monitoring the status of the uplink interface, it can monitor whether the uplink interface and the uplink direct link are faulty at the same time

• A
  9% (3)
• B
  74% (25)
• C
  18% (6)

Explanation

B is wrong because uplink interface monitoring must be configured on the Master device (not the Backup device). When the Master's tracked uplink goes down, it decrements its own priority below the Backup's, triggering a failover - configuring this on the Backup device accomplishes nothing for uplink detection.

D is wrong because standard VRRP interface tracking only detects the local interface state (up/down). It cannot simultaneously detect faults on the upstream direct link beyond that interface (e.g., a broken WAN or ISP link where the local port still shows "up"). Claiming it monitors both at once is false.

A and C are correct statements, not wrong ones: A accurately describes the black hole risk when no tracking is configured (Master stays elected but can't route upstream), and C correctly identifies the Master as the device where priority-based tracking is configured.

Memory tip: Think of it as "Master watches its own door" - only the Master monitors its uplink and steps down in priority when that door closes. The Backup just waits. And VRRP can only see whether the door is open, not whether the road beyond it is passable.

No community discussion yet for this question.