Regarding the MPLS tuning solution, which of the following descriptions is incorrect?

Question

Options

• AIt is recommended to deploy a common path for two-way tunnels to facilitate maintenance and
• BWhen optimizing path calculation, prioritize the creation of high-priority tunnels. High-priority
• CRSVP-TE, SR-TE, and LDP tunnels can all be tuned
• DWhen deploying multiple load-sharing tunnels between two PE nodes, it is recommended to

• A
  9% (3)
• B
  16% (5)
• C
  72% (23)
• D
  3% (1)

Explanation

Option C is incorrect because LDP (Label Distribution Protocol) does not support traffic engineering tuning - it follows IGP shortest paths without constraint-based routing or explicit path control. Only RSVP-TE and SR-TE are traffic engineering protocols with the signaling mechanisms needed for path optimization, bandwidth reservation, and explicit route adjustment, making them the valid candidates for MPLS tuning solutions.

Options A, B, and D describe legitimate MPLS TE best practices: co-routing bidirectional tunnels (A) simplifies OAM and fault correlation; prioritizing high-priority tunnel creation during path calculation (B) ensures critical services get resources first; and deploying multiple parallel tunnels between PE nodes (D) enables ECMP-style load sharing. These are all standard vendor recommendations for MPLS TE deployments.

Memory tip: Think of LDP as "follow the IGP, no questions asked" - it lacks the signaling intelligence to be tuned. If you see LDP grouped with TE protocols (RSVP-TE, SR-TE) as if it shares their capabilities, that's your red flag for an incorrect statement.

No community discussion yet for this question.