Referring to the exhibit, which two statements are true? (Choose two.) [edit policy-options] user@router# show policy-statement policyABC { term A { from { protocol rip; route-filter 192.168.1.0/24 longer; } then accept; } } [edit protocols ospf] user@router# show export policyABC; area 0.0.0.0 { interface ge-0/0/0.0; interface lo0.0;

Question

Accepted Answer

A. The route 192.168.1.0/25 is accepted. The `route-filter 192.168.1.0/24 longer` condition in the policy matches routes that are more specific than `192.168.1.0/24`. `192.168.1.0/25` is a prefix that is longer (more specific) than `/24`, so it would be accepted by this term if it were a RIP route. D. RIP routes will be exported into OSPF. The `from protocol rip;` statement in `policyABC` specifies that only RIP routes are considered, and `export policyABC;` under `protocols ospf` means that these selected RIP routes will be advertised into the OSPF domain.

Answer

B. The route 192.168.2.0/24 is accepted. The route `192.168.2.0/24` is not a sub-prefix of `192.168.1.0/24`, so it does not match the `route-filter 192.168.1.0/24 longer` condition.

Answer

C. OSPF routes will be exported into RIP. The `export policyABC;` statement is configured within the `protocols ospf` hierarchy, which means it controls which routes are exported *from* the local routing table *into* OSPF, not from OSPF into RIP.

Referring to the exhibit, which two statements are true? (Choose two.) [edit policy-options] user@router# show policy-statement policyABC { term A { from { protocol rip; route-filter 192.168.1.0/24…

Question

Options

How the community answered

Why each option

Topics

Community Discussion