A medium-sized company has a Class C IP address. It has two Cisco routers and one non-Cisco router. All three routers are using RIP version 1. The company network is using the block of 198.133.219.0/24. The company has decided it would be a good idea to split the network into three smaller subnets and create the option of conserving addresses with VLSM. What is the best course of action if the company wants to have 40 hosts in each of the three subnets?
A.
Convert all the routers to EIGRP and use 198.133.219.32/27, 198.133.219.64/27, and 198.133.219.92/27 as the new subnetworks.
B.
Maintain the use of RIP version 1 and use 198.133.219.32/27, 198.133.219.64/27, and 133.219.92/27 as the new subnetworks.
C.
Convert all the routers to EIGRP and use 198.133.219.64/26, 198.133.219.128/26, and 133.219.192/26 as the new subnetworks.
D.
Convert all the routers to RIP version 2 and use 198.133.219.64/26, 198.133.219.128/26, and 133.219.192/26 as the new subnetworks.
E.
Convert all the routers to OSPF and use 198.133.219.16/28, 198.133.219.32/28, and 198.133.219.48/28 as the new subnetworks.
F.
Convert all the routers to static routes and use 198.133.219.16/28, 198.133.219.32/28, and 198.133.219.48/28 as the new subnetworks.
Why D and not C? Because EIGRP would be overkill for such a small network maybe?
I think it`s more simple to write the command “version 2” than to convert the whole network to eigrp
EIGRP – is a Cisco proprietary protocol. In the task description you have alongside with two Cisco routers one non-Cisco router, which doesn’t support EIGRP.
RIP version 1 does not support VLSM so we have to convert into RIPv2, OSPF or EIGRP -> B is not correct.
But EIGRP is a Cisco-proprietary routing protocol so it can not be used in a non-Cisco router -> A and C are not correct.
To support 40 hosts per subnet we need a subnet mask of /26 or lower (which leaves 6 bits 0 and 26 = 64 > 40 hosts). Therefore a subnet mask of /28 is not suitable in this case -> E & F are not correct.