Free Cisco SPRI 300-510 Actual Exam Questions - Question 13 Discussion
CE1 and CE2 are iBGP neighbors in AS 65516. All traffic that exits AS 65516 must use the link from
CE1 to PE1. CE1 is advertising a higher local preference to CE2, but traffic from CE2 still prefers the
PE2 link. Which action corrects the problem?
The problem sounds like next-hop issues, so D makes sense here.
B tbh, the local preference should usually dictate the best path inside the AS, but if CE2 is ignoring it and still picking the PE2 link, it might be because MED is influencing its decision. Configuring CE1 to send a higher MED to CE2 could make CE2 see the PE1 path as more preferred. Lowering local preference on PE2 (A) doesn’t feel right since CE2 is receiving routes from PE1 and PE2; next-hop self (D) is more about next-hop reachability, and weight (C) is Cisco-specific and not propagated. So tweaking MED seems like the way to go here.
Is there any info on how the route attributes are actually being received on CE2? Like, can we see if CE2 is honoring the local preference or maybe the next-hop or MED is messing with route selection? Also, does CE2 have next-hop self set for CE1? Without that, it might prefer PE2 routes for being closer or something else. Would be good to know if CE2 sees the route from CE1 as more preferred based on those BGP attributes.