When multiple ASBRs introduce the same external route into the same OSPF domain, use the external route type with metric-type 2 to avoid suboptimal paths.

Question

Options

• ATRUE
• BFALSE
• C
• D

• A
  2% (1)
• B
  79% (33)
• C
  5% (2)
• D
  14% (6)

Explanation

Option B is correct because the statement has the logic backwards: it is metric-type 1 (E1), not type 2, that prevents suboptimal routing when multiple ASBRs advertise the same external route. E1 metrics accumulate the internal OSPF cost to the ASBR plus the external cost, so routers naturally prefer the topologically closest ASBR. E2 metrics carry only the external cost and ignore internal path costs entirely, meaning all paths to competing ASBRs look equally expensive - which is precisely what causes suboptimal routing in multi-ASBR scenarios.

Why A is wrong: Accepting the statement as true would lead you to configure E2, which strips out internal cost awareness and undermines the OSPF forwarding decision between competing ASBRs.

C and D are empty distractors with no content to evaluate.

Memory tip: Think "E1 = Everything counts" - it adds internal + external costs, so OSPF always picks the nearest ASBR. E2 = "External only" - it blindly ignores your internal topology, making it unsuitable when you need to choose between multiple ASBRs advertising the same prefix.

No community discussion yet for this question.