[edit policy-options] user@router# show policy-statement block-routes { term 1 { from { route-filter 172.27.0.0/24 longer; } then reject; } term 2 { then accept; } } You are asked to ensure that…

This is just the edit prompt and not a configuration change that resolves the problem.

The current `route-filter 172.27.0.0/24 longer` in `term 1` only matches prefixes that are *more specific* than 172.27.0.0/24 (e.g., /25, /26). It does not match the exact 172.27.0.0/24 route itself. To include the exact /24 route in the rejection, the `orlonger` match type is necessary, which matches the specified prefix and all its more specific subnets.

The `upto /30` match type would match prefixes within the 172.27.0.0/24 range but with lengths up to /30, which is not the precise requirement to reject the exact /24 prefix and its longer subnets.

Modifying `term 2` to match the problematic routes would cause them to be accepted, not rejected, contrary to the problem statement.

Similar to D, changing `term 2` to match and accept the routes is contrary to the goal of blocking them.