Alcatel-Lucent Advanced Troubleshooting: 4A0-110

Two routers are physically connected to each other with ISIS configured. No ISIS adjacency can be found on both routers. Ping works fine on the local and the remote interface addresses on both routers. Review the confguration information shown below. Which of the following statements best describe the cause of the problem? Select one answer only.

A. The ISIS interface level configured does not match the ISIS level capability supported on the routers

B. The ISIS authentication check is enabled but there is no authentication type and password configured

C. ISIS Area addresses are not configured on both routers

D. L1 wide Metrics are disabled on the routers

E. ISIS Circuit id does not match on Node-1 and Node-2

L1 ISIS adjacency is up between two routers (Node-1 and Node-2) with MD5 authentication configured. During a maintenance window, an operator was planning to change one of the ISIS hello authentication key from admin to admin123. After removing the hello authentication key from Node-1 (no change on Node-2 side), the ISIS adjacency stayed up. The operator decided to fall back to the original configuration and called Alcatel for support. Which of the following statement best describe the cause of the problem? Select one answer only.

A. The ISIS hello authentication key was not configured properly in the first place, that's why removing the authentication key does not impact the adjacency

B. The ISIS authentication key is the same as the hello authentication key, therefore removing hello authentication key does not impact the adjacency

C. The system interface is missing from the ISIS configuration, therefore ISIS is not working properly even before the change

D. ISIS hello authentication key is only used for hello packet exchange. It does not affect ISIS adjacency

E. ISIS hello authentication key is not used to bring up ISIS adjacency when traffic-engineering is enabled on the routers

VPRN 300 is configured between Node 3 and Node 4. Node 4 receives VPN routes from Node 3 and imports them into the VRF. The entire route-table is displayed below for VPRN 300 on Node

4. When attempting a ping from VPRN 300 on Node 4 to 30.1.1.1 the ping fails. A ping from Node 3 within VPRN 300 to 30.1.1.1 is successful. What is the cause of the problem?

A. No local interface existed in VPRN 300 route-table on Node 4

B. Syntax problem in the ping command

C. Prefix 30.1.1.1 does not exist on the far-end

D. Source address has to be specified in the ping command

E. Next-hop address has to be specified in the ping command