350-401 Question 377
Single answerAn enterprise network administrator has configured VRF-Lite on a router to separate traffic for two different departments: Finance and HR. After configuration, they find that traffic from the Finance VRF is not reaching its intended destination. Upon review, they notice that the router's interfaces are properly assigned to the VRFs, and the routes for both VRFs are installed in their respective routing tables. What is the MOST likely issue causing this behavior?
- A
The VRF-Lite configuration is missing route-target imports and exports.
- B
The physical interfaces are not up and operational.
- C
The static routes for the Finance VRF are not pointing to the correct next-hop address.
- D
The Finance VRF is not properly associated with the global routing table.
Show answer and explanation
Correct answer: C
Explanation
In VRF-Lite, each VRF maintains its own independent routing table. If traffic is not reaching its destination, the most common cause is incorrect static routes or missing next-hop information in the VRF's routing table. In this scenario, the Finance VRF's static routes need to be reviewed to ensure they are pointing to the correct next-hop address.
- A. Incorrect.
Route-target imports and exports are used in MPLS VPNs, not in VRF-Lite. VRF-Lite relies on separate routing tables, and route-target configuration is not applicable here.
- B. Incorrect.
If the physical interfaces were down, neither Finance nor HR traffic would work. This issue is specific to the Finance VRF, so the interfaces being down is unlikely.
- C. Correct.
Static routes are critical for directing traffic within a VRF. If the static routes in the Finance VRF are misconfigured, traffic will not reach the intended destination.
- D. Incorrect.
VRF-Lite does not require association with the global routing table unless specific route leaking is needed, which is not mentioned in this scenario.