You are asked to configure the OSPF environment to prevent the DRother routers from participating
in DR/BDR election.
Referring to the exhibit, which command will accomplish this task?B over D here. Setting the OSPF priority to 0 (option B) on a specific interface means that router won't participate in DR/BDR elections, but others still can. D changes the whole interface type to p2p, which avoids any election entirely, not just for DRothers. I think B matches what they're asking for, but I get why D seems tempting from the wording.
Probably AB, based on what I saw in the official guide and a practice test. Quick question though: is this asking about default BGP behavior or are we supposed to assume route reflection is configured? That would change which options are correct.
Referring to the exhibit, which statement is true about VRRP?Honestly, I'm a bit split between C and B here. Both routers being master could be normal for active/active VRRP setups, but having equal priority without preemption could cause this too. Since the question isn't hinting at a config error though, leaning towards C. Wouldn't rule out B if it was asking about default VRRP behavior.
If both routers show as master, isn't that a sign of VRRP active/active mode unless default behavior was mentioned? I don't see anything in the exhibit to suggest priorities are the same or communication is broken.
Option C for sure. IS-IS runs as a link-state protocol-just like OSPF, it builds a complete topology map, not just next hops. It isn't distance vector or path vector, and classful/classless doesn't really apply since IS-IS doesn't carry IP subnet info in the same way RIP or EIGRP might. Pretty confident but correct me if you see conflicting Juniper docs.