Refer to the exhibits. What is the effect when you add the statement neighbor 10.2.0.3 send-community both to the IPv4 address family? (Select two)

Question

Exhibit

Options

• AIt causes R1 to negotiate for the ability to import and export all type-1 and type-2 communities
• BIt causes R1 to allow the exchange of communities with NLRI records in both inbound and
• CIt will cause the existing BGP peering between R1 and R2 to bounce
• DIt causes R1 to negotiate the ability to send and receive standard and extended communities with

• A
  24% (7)
• B
  66% (19)
• C
  10% (3)

Explanation

Adding neighbor 10.2.0.3 send-community both enables R1 to send both standard (32-bit) and extended (64-bit) BGP community attributes alongside NLRI prefix updates to that neighbor - making B correct because communities travel with NLRI records, and D correct because the both keyword explicitly covers both community types (standard for policy tagging, extended for VPN route-targets and route-origins).

A is wrong because "type-1 and type-2 communities" is fabricated terminology, and the phrasing about "import/export" belongs to MPLS VPN route-target logic - not the send-community command, which simply controls whether community attributes are attached to outbound UPDATE messages.

C is wrong because send-community is a local outbound advertisement policy change and does not trigger a BGP session reset; only commands that alter session parameters (such as update-source, ebgp-multihop, or changing the AS number) bounce the peering.

Memory tip: The keyword both maps directly to the two answer choices - think Both communities = B and D (standard + extended). If you remember that BGP never sends communities by default and requires explicit permission, you'll quickly eliminate any answer implying negotiation of "import/export" (a VPN concept) or a session bounce.

No community discussion yet for this question.