On the basis of the network provided in the exhibit, R3 and R4 are configured to run all connected links in OSPF Area 1. The network administrator is complaining that traffic destined to 192.168.1.0/24 is being routed to R2, even if R2 is not running OSPF. Which would be the cause of this problem?
A.
The next hop towards 192.168.1.0/24 at PG-R4 should be 10.1.1.2, which is PG-R2.
B.
The next hop towards 192.168.1.0/24 at PG-R4 should be 10.1.1.1, since PG-R1 is redistributing the route from EIGRP into OSPF. PG-R3 is forwarding traffic incorrectly.
C.
The next hop towards 192.168.1.0/24 at PG-R4 should be 10.1.2.2, which is PG-R3. PG-R3 should be load-sharing between PG-R1 and PG-R2 for its next hop.
D.
PG-R4 does not have a route towards 192.168.1.0/24, so the network administrator is wrong in thinking any traffic is being forwarded there.
How crazy is this with PG-R3 having two legs in 10.1.1.0/24?
This looks odd, not sure if this picture provided is correct…
There is switch in between (L2 device, normally it is hidden in L3 Topology)