irst we must notice that all the 4 answers are parts of the “show ip eigrp topology” output. As you can see, there are 2 parameters in the form of [FD/AD] in each answer. For example answer A has [46152000/41640000], it means that the FD of that route is 46152000 while the AD is 41640000.
To become a feasible successor, a router must meet the feasibility condition:
“To qualify as a feasible successor, a router must have an AD less than the FD of the current successor route“
In four answer above, only answer B has an AD of 120256 and it is smaller than the FD of the current successor route (41152000) so it is the feasible successor -> B is correct.
Well, if we watch the table, we can see that the 10.1.4.0 is the succesor, so it cannot be the FS. So, that’s why the FS must be 10.1.2.2. In my opinion answer C is correct.
irst we must notice that all the 4 answers are parts of the “show ip eigrp topology” output. As you can see, there are 2 parameters in the form of [FD/AD] in each answer. For example answer A has [46152000/41640000], it means that the FD of that route is 46152000 while the AD is 41640000.
To become a feasible successor, a router must meet the feasibility condition:
“To qualify as a feasible successor, a router must have an AD less than the FD of the current successor route“
In four answer above, only answer B has an AD of 120256 and it is smaller than the FD of the current successor route (41152000) so it is the feasible successor -> B is correct.
Well, if we watch the table, we can see that the 10.1.4.0 is the succesor, so it cannot be the FS. So, that’s why the FS must be 10.1.2.2. In my opinion answer C is correct.