Cisco 200-301 Bundle

Duplex can matter for physical link health but is not evidence of a routing-table selection problem on an otherwise healthy connected next-hop subnet. Start with route and config state.

802.1Q tagging governs Layer 2 trunk handling and does not force an IPv4 static route into the router’s installed table. The RIB needs actual valid route prerequisites.

Static and OSPF routes can coexist and compete according to prefix specificity and administrative distance. Removing OSPF indiscriminately would break other routes without proving why this one is inactive.

A /32 host route addresses a single destination, not every unmatched network. The all-ones mask is the opposite of the default prefix.

The /32 mask paired with 0.0.0.0 specifies only the all-zero address. The gateway of last resort requires a zero mask as well as a zero destination.

Cisco static-route syntax specifies destination and mask before next-hop or exit interface. Reordering these fields does not create a valid default.

Link carrier only confirms local physical connectivity; it does not verify remote next-hop routing beyond that segment. A reachability monitor tests a different failure mode.

Static default forwarding does not depend on matching administrative hostnames. Tracking is about path health, not naming consistency.

Changing source preference does not repair provider reachability. It can also make the intended backup primary continuously, contrary to the stated failover design.

Route source withdrawal triggers reevaluation of surviving candidates. A valid floating static is specifically intended to supply a fallback path.

The withdrawn OSPF route is no longer an installed active forwarding candidate. Only surviving valid routes, such as the floating static, can carry traffic.

A connected route derives from an active local interface prefix. Loss of OSPF information cannot manufacture such an interface or turn a remote network into a local link.

A /24 matches only the first branch and leaves 10.95.73.0/24 uncovered by the aggregate. It does not satisfy the two-network request.

A /22 covers four adjacent /24s, including 74.x and 75.x in addition to the requested pair. It would advertise a broader reach than approved.

The supplied 73.0 address is not aligned to a /23 boundary. The correct aggregate begins at the even third octet 72.

The hostname does not participate in route-source preference. A distance-one static remains more preferred than the same-prefix OSPF route.

Zero is even more preferred than the normal static one, not less. A floating backup needs a numerically higher distance than OSPF.

Changing prefix length alters the set of destinations and does not make the same /27 OSPF route primary. The two routes would no longer be equivalent alternatives.

An IPv4 host-mask command does not use IPv6 128-bit address syntax. The correct host route is an `ipv6 route` with /128.

A /64 prefix matches the whole LAN subnet rather than the one named host 2001:db8:300:2::102. It would create a much broader routing change.

A /32 IPv6 prefix fixes only the first 32 bits and covers an enormous address range. It is not the single-endpoint /128 requirement.

Administrative distance applies when selecting among routes to an identical destination prefix. It still matters for competing /24s, but these prefixes differ.

Distance 200 is higher and would lose in a same-prefix source comparison. The actual reason here is the longer /26 prefix match.

Address .200 lies inside the .192–.255 /26 block. The more-specific prefix legitimately matches that packet.

A /23 aggregates only two of the four required /24 networks. It would leave 82.x and 83.x outside the static route.

A /21 covers eight /24-size networks and could include addresses beyond the approved range. The request says not to route 84.x through this gateway.

A /24 covers only 10.94.80.x. The other three included branches would require additional routes rather than one exact aggregate.

The exit-only form treats the destination prefix as directly attached to that interface. On shared Ethernet it does not explicitly identify the desired router peer.

The `ip route` syntax configures IPv4 static routes, not a colon-hexadecimal IPv6 destination. IOS uses `ipv6 route` for this family.

An IPv6 default ::/0 covers all otherwise unmatched destinations. It is much broader than the requested single /64 network.

A global default Null0 route could discard unrelated traffic from many networks. The requirement is to discard only unused addresses inside the /21 aggregate.

That /24 protects only the first child network, not the full eight /24-size range of a /21. It does not cover the intended aggregate holes.

Disabling forwarding would disrupt all legitimate child prefixes. A scoped Null0 summary is the intended targeted loop-prevention mechanism.