which of those routes become feasible successor routes, assuming that you follow the Cisco recommended practice of not changing metric weights?

A network design shows that R1 has four different possible paths from itself to the Data
Center subnets. Which of the following can influence which of those routes become feasible
successor routes, assuming that you follow the Cisco recommended practice of not
changing metric weights? (Choose two.)

A.
The configuration of EIGRP offset lists

B.
Current link loads

C.
Changing interface delay settings

D.
Configuration of variance

Explanation:
By default, the metric weights cause EIGRP to consider bandwidth and delay in the metric
calculation, so changing either bandwidth or delay impacts the calculation of the feasible
distance and reported distance, and impacts choice of feasible successor routes. Offset lists
also change the metric, which in turn can change whether a route is an FS route. Link
loading would impact the metrics, but not without changing the metric weights to
nonrecommended values. Finally, variance impacts which routes end up in the IP routing
table, but it is not considered by EIGRP when determining which routes are FS routes.