sw-1 is the master on all VRRP instances. To test the configuration, VLAN 100 was shut on sw-1, and then once the failover occurred, it was brought back up. What is the expected outcome?

Question

Options

• Asw-1 will be the master for all three VRRP instances.
• Bsw-1 will only be the master for VRRP 200 and VRRP 300.
• Csw-2 will only be the master for VRRP 200 and VRRP 300.
• Dsw-2 will be the master for all three VRRP instances.

• A
  62% (21)
• B
  6% (2)
• C
  24% (8)
• D
  9% (3)

Explanation

Option A is correct because VRRP preemption is enabled by default. When sw-1's VLAN 100 interface is restored, sw-1 regains its full priority on all VRRP instances and immediately preempts sw-2, reclaiming the master role across all three groups - this is the standard VRRP behavior after a tracked interface recovers.

Why the distractors are wrong:

• B is wrong because there is no reason sw-1 would remain a backup for VRRP 100 once VLAN 100 is restored - preemption applies to all instances, including the one tied to that VLAN.
• C is wrong for the same reason: sw-2 holding onto any instances after sw-1's full recovery contradicts default preemption behavior.
• D is the most tempting distractor - it would be correct only if preemption were explicitly disabled (with no preempt in Cisco IOS), which is not stated here.

Memory tip: Think of VRRP preemption as a "returning king" rule - the higher-priority router always reclaims the throne when it recovers, unless you explicitly tell it not to (no preempt). Default = preempt on.

No community discussion yet for this question.