-- Exhibit --
[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;
}
}
-- Exhibit --
You are asked to ensure that your device does not accept any prefixes within the 172.27.0.0/24 network. You have applied the policy shown in the exhibit, but the
172.27.0.0/24 route is still present on your device.
Which configuration will resolve this problem?
Click on the arrows to vote for the correct answer
A. B. C. D.A
The given exhibit shows a policy-statement named "block-routes", which is used to filter routes based on certain conditions. The policy has two terms: term 1, which matches routes that are longer than the prefix 172.27.0.0/24, and then rejects them; and term 2, which accepts any other route.
The objective is to ensure that the router does not accept any routes within the 172.27.0.0/24 network. However, it is observed that the policy in the exhibit does not achieve this objective.
To resolve this issue, we need to modify the policy so that it blocks all routes within the 172.27.0.0/24 network. The correct answer is A.
Option A suggests modifying term 1 by adding the "orlonger" keyword to the route-filter. This will match routes that are equal to or longer than the prefix 172.27.0.0/24, and then reject them. This is the correct way to ensure that the router does not accept any routes within the 172.27.0.0/24 network.
Option B suggests modifying term 1 by changing the "longer" keyword to "upto /30". This will match routes that are longer than the prefix 172.27.0.0/24 and up to /30, which may or may not achieve the objective of blocking all routes within the 172.27.0.0/24 network. Hence, this option is not correct.
Option C suggests modifying term 2 by adding the "longer" keyword to the route-filter. This will not achieve the objective of blocking all routes within the 172.27.0.0/24 network because term 2 is used to accept all other routes, not reject them. Hence, this option is not correct.
Option D does not provide any specific configuration change to the policy. Hence, it is not correct.