An engineer types the command ipv6 route 2001:DB8:8:8::/64 2001:DB8:9:9::9 129 in configuration mode of Router R1 and presses Enter. Later, a show ipv6 route command does not list any route for subnet 2001:DB8:8:8::/64. Which of the following could have caused the route to not be in the IPv6 routing table?
- The command should be using a next-hop link-local address instead of a global unicast.
- The command is missing an outgoing interface parameter, so IOS rejected the ipv6 route command.
- The router has no routes that match 2001:DB8:9:9::9.
- A route for 2001:DB8:8:8::/64 with administrative distance 110 already exists.
Explanation: IOS will add a new static route to the IPv6 routing table if, when using a next-hop global unicast address, the router has a working route to reach that next-hop address and there is no better (lower administrative distance) route for the exact same subnet.
So, the correct answer identifies one reason why the route would not appear. The answer that mentions a better route with administrative distance of 110 is a valid reason for the static route to not appear, but the question states that no route for the subnet appears in the routing table, so clearly that competing route does not exist.
The other two answers are incorrect about the ipv6 route command. This command can use a link-local next-hop address but does not have to do so. Also, when using a global unicast address as next-hop, the command does not also require an outgoing interface parameter.
Please login or Register to submit your answer