[System] You are a network routing expert. Analyze the routing table, detect issues, and provide step-by-step reasoning. Use the format: <reasoning>...step-by-step analysis...</reasoning><answer>...concise answer...</answer>

[User]
Routing table:
C    192.168.1.0/24 is directly connected, GigabitEthernet0/0
O    10.246.19.0/22 [110/17] via 192.168.147.187, 19:54:29, Loopback62
O    10.38.2.0/24 [110/605] via 192.168.187.126, 00:59:23, GigabitEthernet1/3
O    10.73.4.0/30 [110/17] via 192.168.163.10, 10:38:27, Loopback5
O    10.231.72.0/23 [110/17] via 192.168.239.37, 11:43:28, Loopback48
O    10.152.21.0/19 [110/17] via 192.168.73.133, 14:11:00, Loopback92
O    10.133.228.0/19 [110/8] via 192.168.34.143, 11:32:30, Loopback50
L    192.168.1.1/32 is directly connected, GigabitEthernet0/0
O    10.35.1.0/24 [110/4] via 192.168.239.124, 21:50:45, FastEthernet0/2

Question: Does this routing table have any routing inconsistencies?

[Assistant]
<reasoning>
1. Observation: Intra-area route 10.35.1.0/24 has metric 4, while inter-area route 10.38.2.0/24 has metric 605. The inter-area metric is 601 higher despite both destinations being roughly equidistant.
2. Analysis: OSPF inter-area routes are calculated as the sum of intra-area cost to the ABR plus the cost from ABR to destination. An abnormally high inter-area metric suggests: (a) suboptimal ABR placement, (b) a high-cost link in the backbone (Area 0), (c) virtual link with accumulated cost, or (d) summary LSA (Type 3) advertising a high metric from the ABR.
3. Context: Inter-area metric inconsistency causes suboptimal routing—traffic to 10.38.2.0/24 takes a much longer path than necessary. This can create asymmetric routing if return traffic takes a shorter intra-area path. It also complicates traffic engineering and SLA compliance.
4. Recommendation: Verify ABR placement and backbone topology. Check 'show ip ospf database summary' for the advertised metric of 10.38.2.0/24. Ensure virtual links (if used) are not adding excessive cost. Consider using 'area range' with 'cost' override on ABRs to normalize inter-area metrics. Verify all backbone links have consistent bandwidth settings.
</reasoning>
<answer>
WARNING: OSPF inter-area metric inconsistency. 10.38.2.0/24 metric 605 is 601 higher than intra-area 10.35.1.0/24 (4). Check ABR placement, backbone link costs, virtual links, and summary LSA metrics. Suboptimal routing likely.
</answer>


[System] You are a network routing expert. Analyze the routing table, detect issues, and provide step-by-step reasoning. Use the format: <reasoning>...step-by-step analysis...</reasoning><answer>...concise answer...</answer>

[User]
Routing table:
D    10.80.222.0/21 [90/477] via 192.168.155.64
D    10.194.129.0/29 [90/448] via 192.168.91.195
D    10.251.197.0/16 [90/475] via 192.168.143.236
D    10.250.231.0/29 [90/279] via 192.168.177.31
C    192.168.1.0/24 is directly connected, GigabitEthernet0/0
L    192.168.1.1/32 is directly connected, GigabitEthernet0/0
D    10.73.164.0/30 [90/193] via 192.168.225.250
D    10.59.118.0/21 [90/412] via 192.168.13.135
D    10.5.242.0/24 [90/4900] via 192.168.241.254
D    10.67.133.0/21 [90/287] via 192.168.51.95
D    10.241.86.0/30 [90/569] via 192.168.112.129
D    10.114.75.0/18 [90/457] via 192.168.214.154
D    10.241.235.0/24 [90/918] via 192.168.177.175
D    10.177.150.0/29 [90/128] via 192.168.253.174

Question: What routing issues could cause network instability in this configuration?

[Assistant]
<reasoning>
1. Observation: EIGRP route to 10.5.242.0/24 has metric 4900, which is 1053 higher than the expected baseline of 3847. Topology table shows repeated metric increases over the last 5 minutes.
2. Analysis: EIGRP metric increases indicate deteriorating path quality. Possible causes: (a) increasing interface delay due to queue buildup or congestion, (b) bandwidth reduction from auto-negotiation downgrading, (c) a new link with worse characteristics being added to the path, or (d) K-value changes causing recalculation.
3. Context: Unlike OSPF, EIGRP metrics are dynamic and reflect real-time path quality. A steadily increasing metric suggests the path is degrading. If the metric exceeds the feasible distance of the successor, EIGRP will query for a new path, potentially causing SIA if no feasible successor exists.
4. Recommendation: Monitor interface counters on all links toward 10.5.242.0/24 for errors, drops, or queue saturation. Check 'show interface' for bandwidth and delay changes. Verify K-values are consistent across all EIGRP neighbors. If the path includes a WAN link, check SLA metrics and provider circuit health. Consider implementing EIGRP stub to limit query scope.
</reasoning>
<answer>
WARNING: EIGRP metric flapping/increasing for 10.5.242.0/24. Metric rose from 3847 to 4900. Check interface delay/bandwidth, queue congestion, K-values consistency, and WAN link health. SIA risk if no feasible successor.
</answer>


[System] You are a network routing expert. Analyze the routing table, detect issues, and provide step-by-step reasoning. Use the format: <reasoning>...step-by-step analysis...</reasoning><answer>...concise answer...</answer>

[User]
Routing table:
B    10.36.39.0/20 [20/4] via 192.168.191.157
B    10.0.57.0/19 [20/5] via 192.168.121.17
L    192.168.1.1/32 is directly connected, GigabitEthernet0/0
B    10.206.111.0/20 [20/6] via 192.168.167.39
B    10.33.7.0/17 [20/10] via 192.168.31.30
C    192.168.1.0/24 is directly connected, GigabitEthernet0/0
B    10.219.21.0/20 [20/3] via 192.168.14.142
B    10.145.169.0/19 [20/9] via 192.168.38.203
B    10.68.35.0/16 [20/9] via 192.168.87.90
B    10.145.168.0/27 [20/7] via 192.168.23.8
B    10.52.181.0/30 [20/7] via 192.168.249.90
B    10.146.134.0/20 [20/11] via 192.168.193.17
B    10.17.218.0/30 [20/0] via 192.168.132.81
B    10.30.36.0/24 [20/1747] via 192.168.169.213
B    10.19.84.0/26 [20/1] via 192.168.33.141
B    10.137.165.0/17 [20/1] via 192.168.145.140
B    10.210.16.0/29 [20/5] via 192.168.220.246

Question: Analyze this routing table for Administrative Distance conflicts.

[Assistant]
<reasoning>
1. Observation: BGP route to 10.30.36.0/24 has MED 1747, while all other BGP routes have MED between 0 and 15. The MED deviation is 116x to 1747x from the normal range.
2. Analysis: MED (Multi-Exit Discriminator) is used for inter-AS path selection when multiple paths exist from the same neighboring AS. A MED of 1747 is atypical—normal MED values reflect IGP cost (usually <1000). This extreme value suggests: (a) IGP metric redistribution without scaling, (b) manual MED policy misconfiguration, (c) AS-path prepending combined with MED, or (d) a BGP community setting MED incorrectly.
3. Context: BGP best-path selection compares MED after weight, local-preference, and AS-path length. An extreme MED makes this path the least preferred among equal AS-path alternatives, effectively black-holing traffic if it's the only path. It also complicates traffic engineering.
4. Recommendation: Verify MED configuration on the advertising router. Check route-maps setting MED based on IGP metric—consider dividing by a factor (e.g., 'set metric igp-cost / 10'). Review BGP communities that manipulate MED. Ensure consistent MED policy across all BGP speakers in the AS.
</reasoning>
<answer>
WARNING: BGP MED skew for 10.30.36.0/24. MED 1747 is 116x–1747x higher than normal (0–15). Check IGP redistribution scaling, route-map MED policies, and community configurations. Path likely depreferred.
</answer>


[System] You are a network routing expert. Analyze the routing table, detect issues, and provide step-by-step reasoning. Use the format: <reasoning>...step-by-step analysis...</reasoning><answer>...concise answer...</answer>

[User]
Routing table:
O    10.205.63.0/22 [110/17] via 192.168.143.222, 15:56:42, Serial3/0:1
O    10.41.1.0/24 [110/5] via 192.168.50.98, 03:13:53, GigabitEthernet1/3
O    10.33.34.0/23 [110/8] via 192.168.207.201, 08:52:04, Serial2/1:0
O    10.53.84.0/21 [110/9] via 192.168.239.198, 06:43:47, Port-channel6
O    10.48.2.0/24 [110/1191] via 192.168.255.201, 11:53:42, GigabitEthernet0/0
O    10.191.104.0/29 [110/9] via 192.168.230.96, 23:13:33, GigabitEthernet1/1
O    10.11.33.0/17 [110/7] via 192.168.76.55, 18:51:17, Loopback81
O    10.128.153.0/28 [110/4] via 192.168.36.126, 22:20:53, FastEthernet3/2
L    192.168.1.1/32 is directly connected, GigabitEthernet0/0
O    10.70.153.0/20 [110/11] via 192.168.219.201, 01:50:19, FastEthernet3/0
C    192.168.1.0/24 is directly connected, GigabitEthernet0/0
O    10.183.209.0/24 [110/12] via 192.168.211.206, 21:45:24, Port-channel4
O    10.141.151.0/17 [110/10] via 192.168.150.140, 12:29:24, GigabitEthernet2/1

Question: Does this routing table have any routing inconsistencies?

[Assistant]
<reasoning>
1. Observation: Intra-area route 10.41.1.0/24 has metric 5, while inter-area route 10.48.2.0/24 has metric 1191. The inter-area metric is 1186 higher despite both destinations being roughly equidistant.
2. Analysis: OSPF inter-area routes are calculated as the sum of intra-area cost to the ABR plus the cost from ABR to destination. An abnormally high inter-area metric suggests: (a) suboptimal ABR placement, (b) a high-cost link in the backbone (Area 0), (c) virtual link with accumulated cost, or (d) summary LSA (Type 3) advertising a high metric from the ABR.
3. Context: Inter-area metric inconsistency causes suboptimal routing—traffic to 10.48.2.0/24 takes a much longer path than necessary. This can create asymmetric routing if return traffic takes a shorter intra-area path. It also complicates traffic engineering and SLA compliance.
4. Recommendation: Verify ABR placement and backbone topology. Check 'show ip ospf database summary' for the advertised metric of 10.48.2.0/24. Ensure virtual links (if used) are not adding excessive cost. Consider using 'area range' with 'cost' override on ABRs to normalize inter-area metrics. Verify all backbone links have consistent bandwidth settings.
</reasoning>
<answer>
WARNING: OSPF inter-area metric inconsistency. 10.48.2.0/24 metric 1191 is 1186 higher than intra-area 10.41.1.0/24 (5). Check ABR placement, backbone link costs, virtual links, and summary LSA metrics. Suboptimal routing likely.
</answer>


[System] You are a network routing expert. Analyze the routing table, detect issues, and provide step-by-step reasoning. Use the format: <reasoning>...step-by-step analysis...</reasoning><answer>...concise answer...</answer>

[User]
Routing table:
O    10.23.60.0/29 [110/14] via 192.168.113.64, 17:55:22, Serial2/0:0
O    10.40.192.0/21 [110/5] via 192.168.213.234, 22:51:55, GigabitEthernet0/2
O    10.108.101.0/21 [110/17] via 192.168.90.170, 05:34:44, Loopback5
O    10.189.73.0/29 [110/2] via 192.168.205.214, 13:16:13, Loopback45
O    10.32.2.0/24 [110/1533] via 192.168.113.173, 11:58:40, FastEthernet2/0
O    10.254.35.0/20 [110/17] via 192.168.119.250, 00:00:39, Port-channel1
O    10.197.73.0/16 [110/14] via 192.168.183.128, 18:46:07, FastEthernet1/2
C    192.168.1.0/24 is directly connected, GigabitEthernet0/0
O    10.35.197.0/29 [110/20] via 192.168.16.246, 14:56:00, Port-channel5
O    10.3.1.0/24 [110/4] via 192.168.3.22, 00:22:24, Loopback23
O    10.58.141.0/16 [110/3] via 192.168.196.131, 00:16:04, FastEthernet3/1
L    192.168.1.1/32 is directly connected, GigabitEthernet0/0
O    10.253.169.0/18 [110/15] via 192.168.225.127, 12:26:37, GigabitEthernet2/3
O    10.128.202.0/26 [110/9] via 192.168.232.86, 15:51:00, FastEthernet0/2

Question: Does this routing table have any routing inconsistencies?

[Assistant]
<reasoning>
1. Observation: Intra-area route 10.3.1.0/24 has metric 4, while inter-area route 10.32.2.0/24 has metric 1533. The inter-area metric is 1529 higher despite both destinations being roughly equidistant.
2. Analysis: OSPF inter-area routes are calculated as the sum of intra-area cost to the ABR plus the cost from ABR to destination. An abnormally high inter-area metric suggests: (a) suboptimal ABR placement, (b) a high-cost link in the backbone (Area 0), (c) virtual link with accumulated cost, or (d) summary LSA (Type 3) advertising a high metric from the ABR.
3. Context: Inter-area metric inconsistency causes suboptimal routing—traffic to 10.32.2.0/24 takes a much longer path than necessary. This can create asymmetric routing if return traffic takes a shorter intra-area path. It also complicates traffic engineering and SLA compliance.
4. Recommendation: Verify ABR placement and backbone topology. Check 'show ip ospf database summary' for the advertised metric of 10.32.2.0/24. Ensure virtual links (if used) are not adding excessive cost. Consider using 'area range' with 'cost' override on ABRs to normalize inter-area metrics. Verify all backbone links have consistent bandwidth settings.
</reasoning>
<answer>
WARNING: OSPF inter-area metric inconsistency. 10.32.2.0/24 metric 1533 is 1529 higher than intra-area 10.3.1.0/24 (4). Check ABR placement, backbone link costs, virtual links, and summary LSA metrics. Suboptimal routing likely.
</answer>


[System] You are a network routing expert. Analyze the routing table, detect issues, and provide step-by-step reasoning. Use the format: <reasoning>...step-by-step analysis...</reasoning><answer>...concise answer...</answer>

[User]
Routing table:
O    10.45.86.0/24 [110/16] via 192.168.184.210, 01:38:26, Serial2/1:1
O    10.87.111.0/17 [110/7] via 192.168.168.39, 06:43:09, Loopback67
O    10.57.74.0/23 [110/2] via 192.168.227.57, 10:28:30, Loopback24
D    10.174.192.0/29 [90/356] via 192.168.202.43
O    10.14.172.0/27 [110/16] via 192.168.62.153, 05:01:56, Serial2/0:0
D    10.45.86.0/24 [90/258509] via 192.168.17.244
D    10.6.83.0/18 [90/610] via 192.168.0.129
L    192.168.1.1/32 is directly connected, GigabitEthernet0/0
C    192.168.1.0/24 is directly connected, GigabitEthernet0/0
O    10.151.183.0/19 [110/2] via 192.168.200.35, 00:58:18, Port-channel4
O    10.181.7.0/19 [110/12] via 192.168.177.38, 18:21:19, Port-channel5
D    10.193.110.0/29 [90/789] via 192.168.118.208

Question: Analyze this routing table for Administrative Distance conflicts.

[Assistant]
<reasoning>
1. Observation: Network 10.45.86.0/24 appears in both OSPF (metric 16, AD 110) and EIGRP (metric 258509, AD 90). The metrics differ by 16156x, but EIGRP's lower AD (90 < 110) makes it the active route.
2. Analysis: OSPF and EIGRP use completely different metric scales. OSPF cost is based on cumulative link bandwidth (typically 1–65535), while EIGRP composite metric combines bandwidth, delay, load, and reliability (typically 100–10,000,000). Direct comparison is meaningless. However, the coexistence of both protocols for the same prefix indicates route redistribution or accidental dual-protocol deployment.
3. Context: If redistribution is intentional, metrics must be scaled appropriately (e.g., OSPF→EIGRP metric translation). If accidental, the protocols compete for RIB installation, causing route flapping if AD values are manipulated. The EIGRP path may be suboptimal despite lower AD if the OSPF path is actually better in terms of latency/hops.
4. Recommendation: Verify if dual-protocol learning is intentional. If redistributing, use route-maps with metric scaling (e.g., 'set metric 10000 100 255 1 1500' for EIGRP). If accidental, remove one protocol from the interface or use distribute-lists. Ensure AD values reflect true path preference—consider 'distance eigrp' or 'distance ospf' adjustments.
</reasoning>
<answer>
WARNING: Inconsistent metrics between protocols for 10.45.86.0/24. OSPF metric 16 vs EIGRP metric 258509 (different scales). EIGRP wins due to lower AD (90). Verify redistribution scaling or remove accidental dual-protocol deployment.
</answer>


[System] You are a network routing expert. Analyze the routing table, detect issues, and provide step-by-step reasoning. Use the format: <reasoning>...step-by-step analysis...</reasoning><answer>...concise answer...</answer>

[User]
Routing table:
O    10.13.154.0/26 [110/12] via 192.168.199.181, 17:47:30, Serial3/0:0
B    10.94.116.0/28 [20/42] via 192.168.102.150
B    10.29.121.0/22 [20/5] via 192.168.217.192
B    10.45.29.0/24 [20/605] via 192.168.91.124
O    10.116.134.0/16 [110/5] via 192.168.172.94, 07:32:49, FastEthernet1/2
L    192.168.1.1/32 is directly connected, GigabitEthernet0/0
O    10.20.18.0/22 [110/3] via 192.168.206.54, 06:50:49, GigabitEthernet1/2
B    10.153.150.0/21 [20/31] via 192.168.218.166
B    10.59.2.0/22 [20/5] via 192.168.128.60
O    192.168.91.0/24 [110/7] via 192.168.253.55, 19:09:42, FastEthernet3/3
O    10.16.109.0/25 [110/5] via 192.168.98.249, 17:14:21, Port-channel8
O    10.137.161.0/30 [110/5] via 192.168.254.235, 22:19:58, Serial3/0:1
O    10.217.210.0/24 [110/3] via 192.168.203.82, 04:27:42, Loopback68
O    10.170.143.0/16 [110/17] via 192.168.12.203, 02:04:36, Loopback22
C    192.168.1.0/24 is directly connected, GigabitEthernet0/0
B    10.84.209.0/27 [20/31] via 192.168.40.233
O    10.126.235.0/28 [110/12] via 192.168.137.50, 08:53:18, Port-channel5
O    10.46.185.0/26 [110/9] via 192.168.107.204, 22:47:46, Serial2/0:0
O    10.166.80.0/23 [110/2] via 192.168.237.154, 19:16:57, Loopback7

Question: Identify all potential issues in this routing table and classify them by severity.

[Assistant]
<reasoning>
1. Observation: BGP route to 10.45.29.0/24 has MED 605, but the IGP (OSPF) metric to its next-hop 192.168.91.124 is only 7. The MED is 86x to 605x higher than the actual IGP cost.
2. Analysis: MED should ideally reflect the IGP metric from the advertising router to the BGP next-hop. A large discrepancy indicates: (a) MED is manually set without IGP correlation, (b) IGP metric changed after BGP advertisement, (c) redistribution from another protocol with different metric scale, or (d) route-map setting MED based on a static value rather than dynamic IGP.
3. Context: Inconsistent MED-to-IGP mapping breaks hot-potato routing. Traffic may enter the AS at a suboptimal point because MED doesn't reflect true internal cost. This causes inefficient inter-domain traffic patterns and violates BGP best practices (RFC 4451).
4. Recommendation: Configure 'set metric igp-cost' in BGP route-maps to ensure MED matches IGP metric. If using iBGP with next-hop-self, verify the IGP metric to the advertising router, not the original next-hop. Audit all route-maps for static MED values. Consider using 'bgp bestpath med missing-as-worst' for consistent behavior.
</reasoning>
<answer>
WARNING: BGP MED/IGP metric inconsistency for 10.45.29.0/24. MED 605 does not match IGP metric 7 to next-hop 192.168.91.124. Check route-map MED configuration and IGP correlation. MED should reflect true internal cost per RFC 4451.
</answer>


[System] You are a network routing expert. Analyze the routing table, detect issues, and provide step-by-step reasoning. Use the format: <reasoning>...step-by-step analysis...</reasoning><answer>...concise answer...</answer>

[User]
Routing table:
O    10.20.138.0/22 [110/2] via 192.168.249.247, 10:06:43, GigabitEthernet0/1
O    10.45.49.0/24 [110/6] via 192.168.116.240, 00:00:08, Serial2/1:0
O    10.242.57.0/24 [110/19] via 192.168.213.254, 19:27:37, Serial0/1:1
O    10.167.75.0/30 [110/2] via 192.168.138.146, 03:16:46, GigabitEthernet3/2
O    10.6.189.0/21 [110/19] via 192.168.140.86, 00:18:10, Port-channel3
O    10.45.49.0/24 [110/138] via 192.168.3.40, 00:00:26, FastEthernet0/0
O    10.70.15.0/30 [110/10] via 192.168.219.170, 03:01:00, GigabitEthernet3/0
O    10.197.138.0/22 [110/18] via 192.168.232.209, 11:15:47, FastEthernet0/2
O    10.79.124.0/16 [110/11] via 192.168.91.229, 09:03:20, GigabitEthernet0/0
O    10.13.116.0/16 [110/18] via 192.168.238.72, 19:31:37, Port-channel2
O    10.173.244.0/29 [110/20] via 192.168.237.164, 05:51:25, Serial3/1:0
C    192.168.1.0/24 is directly connected, GigabitEthernet0/0
L    192.168.1.1/32 is directly connected, GigabitEthernet0/0
O    10.250.144.0/20 [110/18] via 192.168.145.239, 15:57:05, Loopback2

Question: Does this routing table have any routing inconsistencies?

[Assistant]
<reasoning>
1. Observation: Two OSPF routes to 10.45.49.0/24 exist with different metrics: 6 via 192.168.116.240 (recent) and 138 via 192.168.3.40 (more recent). The metric oscillated by 132 within 30 seconds.
2. Analysis: Metric flapping in OSPF indicates interface cost instability. Possible causes: (a) interface bandwidth auto-negotiation flapping between speeds (e.g., 1Gbps ↔ 100Mbps), (b) reference bandwidth change on an upstream router, (c) LSA refresh from a router with inconsistent cost, or (d) a link with intermittent congestion causing OSPF to recalculate.
3. Context: Metric flapping triggers repeated SPF calculations, consuming CPU. It also causes route churn in the RIB and FIB, leading to packet loss and out-of-order delivery. CEF may alternate between next-hops, causing micro-looping.
4. Recommendation: Check interface speed/duplex on all links toward 10.45.49.0/24 with 'show interface'. Verify 'auto-cost reference-bandwidth' is identical on all routers in the area. Check for LSA Type 1/2 flooding storms. Consider enabling OSPF SPF throttling ('timers throttle spf') to dampen recalculation frequency.
</reasoning>
<answer>
WARNING: OSPF metric flapping for 10.45.49.0/24. Metric oscillated between 6 and 138 within 30 seconds. Check interface speed/duplex negotiation, reference-bandwidth consistency, and LSA flooding. Enable SPF throttling to reduce CPU impact.
</answer>


[System] You are a network routing expert. Analyze the routing table, detect issues, and provide step-by-step reasoning. Use the format: <reasoning>...step-by-step analysis...</reasoning><answer>...concise answer...</answer>

[User]
Routing table:
L    192.168.1.1/32 is directly connected, GigabitEthernet0/0
C    192.168.1.0/24 is directly connected, GigabitEthernet0/0
D    10.35.47.0/25 [90/370] via 192.168.117.90
O    10.50.64.0/24 [110/16] via 192.168.181.32, 11:44:56, Loopback96
O    10.95.194.0/26 [110/5] via 192.168.139.155, 08:27:31, Serial1/0:1
O    10.249.217.0/24 [110/2] via 192.168.191.195, 09:34:57, FastEthernet0/2
D    10.223.29.0/19 [90/918] via 192.168.136.58
D    10.47.72.0/17 [90/168] via 192.168.60.28
D    10.88.15.0/22 [90/701] via 192.168.12.128
D    10.50.64.0/24 [90/413321] via 192.168.101.247
O    10.35.63.0/19 [110/14] via 192.168.109.93, 14:30:27, Serial1/0:1

Question: Analyze this routing table for Administrative Distance conflicts.

[Assistant]
<reasoning>
1. Observation: Network 10.50.64.0/24 appears in both OSPF (metric 16, AD 110) and EIGRP (metric 413321, AD 90). The metrics differ by 25832x, but EIGRP's lower AD (90 < 110) makes it the active route.
2. Analysis: OSPF and EIGRP use completely different metric scales. OSPF cost is based on cumulative link bandwidth (typically 1–65535), while EIGRP composite metric combines bandwidth, delay, load, and reliability (typically 100–10,000,000). Direct comparison is meaningless. However, the coexistence of both protocols for the same prefix indicates route redistribution or accidental dual-protocol deployment.
3. Context: If redistribution is intentional, metrics must be scaled appropriately (e.g., OSPF→EIGRP metric translation). If accidental, the protocols compete for RIB installation, causing route flapping if AD values are manipulated. The EIGRP path may be suboptimal despite lower AD if the OSPF path is actually better in terms of latency/hops.
4. Recommendation: Verify if dual-protocol learning is intentional. If redistributing, use route-maps with metric scaling (e.g., 'set metric 10000 100 255 1 1500' for EIGRP). If accidental, remove one protocol from the interface or use distribute-lists. Ensure AD values reflect true path preference—consider 'distance eigrp' or 'distance ospf' adjustments.
</reasoning>
<answer>
WARNING: Inconsistent metrics between protocols for 10.50.64.0/24. OSPF metric 16 vs EIGRP metric 413321 (different scales). EIGRP wins due to lower AD (90). Verify redistribution scaling or remove accidental dual-protocol deployment.
</answer>


[System] You are a network routing expert. Analyze the routing table, detect issues, and provide step-by-step reasoning. Use the format: <reasoning>...step-by-step analysis...</reasoning><answer>...concise answer...</answer>

[User]
Routing table:
O    10.241.78.0/17 [110/19] via 192.168.7.242, 23:48:36, FastEthernet2/3
O    10.157.32.0/29 [110/2] via 192.168.52.152, 02:52:16, Loopback3
O    10.34.169.0/23 [110/8] via 192.168.27.134, 07:40:37, Serial0/0:1
O    10.52.42.0/28 [110/18] via 192.168.57.106, 04:35:40, Loopback88
O    10.245.134.0/25 [110/11] via 192.168.65.9, 16:01:22, GigabitEthernet2/0
O    10.28.56.0/24 [110/3] via 192.168.51.245, 00:00:09, Loopback70
L    192.168.1.1/32 is directly connected, GigabitEthernet0/0
O    10.126.150.0/22 [110/2] via 192.168.140.40, 14:24:18, FastEthernet2/0
O    10.150.94.0/20 [110/5] via 192.168.154.41, 10:30:46, Serial1/0:0
C    192.168.1.0/24 is directly connected, GigabitEthernet0/0
O    10.119.173.0/30 [110/20] via 192.168.16.17, 04:03:02, GigabitEthernet3/2
O    10.203.62.0/25 [110/3] via 192.168.166.50, 11:09:07, Port-channel6
O    10.167.134.0/16 [110/12] via 192.168.54.181, 05:06:55, Loopback59
O    10.50.192.0/28 [110/20] via 192.168.96.53, 01:03:10, FastEthernet2/0
O    10.181.68.0/20 [110/19] via 192.168.45.52, 22:45:24, GigabitEthernet0/2
O    10.28.56.0/24 [110/100] via 192.168.59.229, 00:00:26, Serial2/1:1
O    10.88.22.0/19 [110/12] via 192.168.86.203, 20:08:30, Port-channel4

Question: Does this routing table have any routing inconsistencies?

[Assistant]
<reasoning>
1. Observation: Two OSPF routes to 10.28.56.0/24 exist with different metrics: 3 via 192.168.51.245 (recent) and 100 via 192.168.59.229 (more recent). The metric oscillated by 97 within 30 seconds.
2. Analysis: Metric flapping in OSPF indicates interface cost instability. Possible causes: (a) interface bandwidth auto-negotiation flapping between speeds (e.g., 1Gbps ↔ 100Mbps), (b) reference bandwidth change on an upstream router, (c) LSA refresh from a router with inconsistent cost, or (d) a link with intermittent congestion causing OSPF to recalculate.
3. Context: Metric flapping triggers repeated SPF calculations, consuming CPU. It also causes route churn in the RIB and FIB, leading to packet loss and out-of-order delivery. CEF may alternate between next-hops, causing micro-looping.
4. Recommendation: Check interface speed/duplex on all links toward 10.28.56.0/24 with 'show interface'. Verify 'auto-cost reference-bandwidth' is identical on all routers in the area. Check for LSA Type 1/2 flooding storms. Consider enabling OSPF SPF throttling ('timers throttle spf') to dampen recalculation frequency.
</reasoning>
<answer>
WARNING: OSPF metric flapping for 10.28.56.0/24. Metric oscillated between 3 and 100 within 30 seconds. Check interface speed/duplex negotiation, reference-bandwidth consistency, and LSA flooding. Enable SPF throttling to reduce CPU impact.
</answer>


[System] You are a network routing expert. Analyze the routing table, detect issues, and provide step-by-step reasoning. Use the format: <reasoning>...step-by-step analysis...</reasoning><answer>...concise answer...</answer>

[User]
Routing table:
O    10.248.39.0/30 [110/10] via 192.168.23.227, 17:32:17, FastEthernet2/0
C    192.168.1.0/24 is directly connected, GigabitEthernet0/0
O    10.38.100.0/24 [110/89] via 192.168.109.27, 00:00:18, GigabitEthernet3/0
O    10.248.178.0/30 [110/15] via 192.168.72.22, 08:46:26, FastEthernet0/2
O    10.173.131.0/28 [110/3] via 192.168.214.39, 16:26:17, Serial2/1:1
O    10.65.56.0/19 [110/5] via 192.168.26.96, 03:26:29, Loopback82
O    10.153.161.0/28 [110/16] via 192.168.5.239, 07:46:19, GigabitEthernet1/2
O    10.27.114.0/19 [110/14] via 192.168.218.148, 17:08:12, Serial1/1:1
O    10.185.200.0/16 [110/10] via 192.168.106.198, 22:02:59, Port-channel7
O    10.73.67.0/19 [110/15] via 192.168.198.26, 23:24:58, FastEthernet2/3
O    10.243.217.0/24 [110/19] via 192.168.169.210, 15:21:50, FastEthernet2/1
O    10.38.100.0/24 [110/4] via 192.168.193.160, 00:00:12, GigabitEthernet2/0
O    10.193.173.0/16 [110/6] via 192.168.172.182, 02:47:28, Loopback42
O    10.81.108.0/23 [110/14] via 192.168.77.187, 15:34:20, GigabitEthernet1/0
O    10.127.198.0/28 [110/14] via 192.168.207.60, 17:55:03, Loopback90
O    10.250.190.0/21 [110/6] via 192.168.87.206, 06:38:21, Port-channel6
O    10.50.119.0/20 [110/20] via 192.168.111.179, 22:36:24, Port-channel6
L    192.168.1.1/32 is directly connected, GigabitEthernet0/0

Question: Does this routing table have any routing inconsistencies?

[Assistant]
<reasoning>
1. Observation: Two OSPF routes to 10.38.100.0/24 exist with different metrics: 4 via 192.168.193.160 (recent) and 89 via 192.168.109.27 (more recent). The metric oscillated by 85 within 30 seconds.
2. Analysis: Metric flapping in OSPF indicates interface cost instability. Possible causes: (a) interface bandwidth auto-negotiation flapping between speeds (e.g., 1Gbps ↔ 100Mbps), (b) reference bandwidth change on an upstream router, (c) LSA refresh from a router with inconsistent cost, or (d) a link with intermittent congestion causing OSPF to recalculate.
3. Context: Metric flapping triggers repeated SPF calculations, consuming CPU. It also causes route churn in the RIB and FIB, leading to packet loss and out-of-order delivery. CEF may alternate between next-hops, causing micro-looping.
4. Recommendation: Check interface speed/duplex on all links toward 10.38.100.0/24 with 'show interface'. Verify 'auto-cost reference-bandwidth' is identical on all routers in the area. Check for LSA Type 1/2 flooding storms. Consider enabling OSPF SPF throttling ('timers throttle spf') to dampen recalculation frequency.
</reasoning>
<answer>
WARNING: OSPF metric flapping for 10.38.100.0/24. Metric oscillated between 4 and 89 within 30 seconds. Check interface speed/duplex negotiation, reference-bandwidth consistency, and LSA flooding. Enable SPF throttling to reduce CPU impact.
</answer>


[System] You are a network routing expert. Analyze the routing table, detect issues, and provide step-by-step reasoning. Use the format: <reasoning>...step-by-step analysis...</reasoning><answer>...concise answer...</answer>

[User]
Routing table:
B    10.128.218.0/18 [20/0] via 192.168.183.45
B    10.170.80.0/27 [20/3] via 192.168.52.113
B    10.153.126.0/24 [20/4] via 192.168.176.33
B    10.1.254.0/22 [20/1] via 192.168.31.80
B    10.25.240.0/25 [20/12] via 192.168.116.57
B    10.20.120.0/27 [20/0] via 192.168.54.230
C    192.168.1.0/24 is directly connected, GigabitEthernet0/0
B    10.139.237.0/20 [20/0] via 192.168.28.44
B    10.26.106.0/23 [20/4] via 192.168.26.17
B    10.171.30.0/19 [20/0] via 192.168.69.128
B    10.34.117.0/24 [20/1] via 192.168.175.114
B    10.237.102.0/28 [20/3] via 192.168.220.22
B    10.34.117.0/24 [20/246] via 192.168.161.93
L    192.168.1.1/32 is directly connected, GigabitEthernet0/0
B    10.225.115.0/17 [20/12] via 192.168.18.192
B    10.217.186.0/25 [20/8] via 192.168.229.227

Question: Identify all potential issues in this routing table and classify them by severity.

[Assistant]
<reasoning>
1. Observation: Two BGP routes to 10.34.117.0/24 exist with oscillating MED values: 1 via 192.168.175.114 and 246 via 192.168.161.93. The MED difference of 245 causes repeated best-path changes.
2. Analysis: MED flapping between BGP peers indicates inconsistent IGP metric redistribution. Possible causes: (a) IGP metric changes on the path to the next-hop, (b) route-map applying MED based on a dynamic metric (e.g., delay, load), (c) dual-homed peers with different IGP costs, or (d) BGP policy oscillation between two route-maps.
3. Context: BGP best-path selection runs for each prefix when MED changes. With many prefixes, this causes CPU spikes and route churn. The router may also send repeated updates to downstream peers, amplifying the instability. MED oscillation is a known cause of BGP route dampening activation.
4. Recommendation: Stabilize the IGP metric to the BGP next-hop addresses. Use 'set metric' with a fixed value in route-maps instead of dynamic IGP-derived MED. Consider using 'bgp deterministic-med' to ensure consistent comparison. Implement BGP route dampening to suppress flapping prefixes. If using IGP-derived MED, ensure IGP is stable (e.g., OSPF cost not flapping).
</reasoning>
<answer>
WARNING: BGP MED flapping for 10.34.117.0/24. MED oscillates between 1 and 246. Check IGP metric stability, route-map MED policies, and 'bgp deterministic-med'. Implement BGP dampening. CPU impact from repeated best-path selection.
</answer>


[System] You are a network routing expert. Analyze the routing table, detect issues, and provide step-by-step reasoning. Use the format: <reasoning>...step-by-step analysis...</reasoning><answer>...concise answer...</answer>

[User]
Routing table:
D    10.48.206.0/26 [90/148] via 192.168.55.45
D    10.63.86.0/28 [90/341] via 192.168.138.58
D    10.187.37.0/22 [90/475] via 192.168.173.142
D    10.18.208.0/24 [90/207] via 192.168.8.198
D    10.24.61.0/24 [90/2438340] via 192.168.27.112
D    10.164.17.0/17 [90/482] via 192.168.103.223
C    192.168.1.0/24 is directly connected, GigabitEthernet0/0
D    10.248.36.0/27 [90/760] via 192.168.242.19
D    10.251.151.0/28 [90/263] via 192.168.202.223
L    192.168.1.1/32 is directly connected, GigabitEthernet0/0
D    10.97.176.0/22 [90/121] via 192.168.31.117
D    10.10.85.0/18 [90/307] via 192.168.109.140
D    10.201.171.0/19 [90/164] via 192.168.133.57

Question: Does this routing table have any routing inconsistencies?

[Assistant]
<reasoning>
1. Observation: EIGRP route to 10.24.61.0/24 has composite metric 2438340, while other EIGRP routes have metrics between 100 and 1000. The deviation is 2438x to 24383x from normal.
2. Analysis: EIGRP composite metric = (K1 * bandwidth + K2 * bandwidth/(256-load) + K3 * delay) * K5/(reliability + K4). A metric of 2438340 indicates either: (a) a very low-bandwidth link (e.g., T1 at 1544 kbps with high delay), (b) a satellite or MPLS link with high delay, (c) interface bandwidth misconfigured to 1 kbps, or (d) K-values mismatch between neighbors causing metric calculation divergence.
3. Context: EIGRP uses the composite metric for best-path and feasible successor selection. An abnormally high metric may prevent the route from being used even when it's the only path, or cause feasible successor rejection. The route may also indicate a SIA condition if the metric keeps increasing.
4. Recommendation: Verify 'bandwidth' and 'delay' interface parameters on all links toward 10.24.61.0/24. Check K-value consistency with 'show ip eigrp neighbors' and 'show ip protocols'. If the path includes a satellite/WAN link, consider adjusting delay to reflect actual latency. Verify no interface bandwidth is set to 1 kbps accidentally.
</reasoning>
<answer>
WARNING: Severe EIGRP metric skew for 10.24.61.0/24. Composite metric 2438340 is 2438x–24383x higher than normal (100–1000). Check interface bandwidth/delay, K-values consistency, and SIA conditions.
</answer>


[System] You are a network routing expert. Analyze the routing table, detect issues, and provide step-by-step reasoning. Use the format: <reasoning>...step-by-step analysis...</reasoning><answer>...concise answer...</answer>

[User]
Routing table:
O    10.156.1.0/24 [110/2] via 192.168.68.28, 17:46:32, Serial3/0:0
O    10.156.3.0/24 [110/12] via 192.168.250.227, 00:30:51, Serial0/1:0
O    10.91.71.0/20 [110/16] via 192.168.182.33, 05:43:09, FastEthernet1/0
O    10.64.108.0/28 [110/17] via 192.168.138.199, 20:25:34, FastEthernet2/2
O    10.156.0.0/24 [110/20] via 192.168.158.22, 16:43:37, Loopback91
O    10.96.77.0/25 [110/6] via 192.168.78.187, 08:50:19, FastEthernet0/0
L    192.168.1.1/32 is directly connected, GigabitEthernet0/0
O    10.156.2.0/24 [110/17] via 192.168.118.254, 19:30:16, Serial2/1:1
C    192.168.1.0/24 is directly connected, GigabitEthernet0/0
O    10.156.96.0/24 [110/3957] via 192.168.152.252, 02:54:32, Loopback78
O    10.156.5.0/24 [110/8] via 192.168.204.78, 13:55:04, Port-channel1
O    10.250.162.0/26 [110/7] via 192.168.173.93, 16:33:55, GigabitEthernet1/2
O    10.196.54.0/30 [110/16] via 192.168.109.8, 16:54:33, FastEthernet1/3
O    10.156.4.0/24 [110/16] via 192.168.187.65, 16:53:46, FastEthernet2/2

Question: Identify all potential issues in this routing table and classify them by severity.

[Assistant]
<reasoning>
1. Observation: OSPF route to 10.156.96.0/24 has metric 3957, while all other OSPF routes in the same area have metrics between 2 and 20. The deviation is 197x to 1978x from the normal range.
2. Analysis: OSPF metric is calculated as the sum of interface costs (reference bandwidth / interface bandwidth). A metric of 3957 suggests either: (a) a very low-bandwidth path (e.g., serial link at 64 kbps), (b) manual cost misconfiguration, (c) reference bandwidth mismatch between routers, or (d) a routing loop causing accumulated cost.
3. Context: This skewed metric makes the path appear much longer than it is. Traffic to 10.156.96.0/24 will be routed suboptimally if an alternate path exists. In a hierarchical design, such metrics can break traffic engineering and cause hot-potato routing issues.
4. Recommendation: Verify interface bandwidth settings on all links toward 10.156.96.0/24. Check 'auto-cost reference-bandwidth' consistency across all OSPF routers. If the path includes a low-speed link, consider upgrading or using a tunnel. Verify no manual 'ip ospf cost' override is applied incorrectly.
</reasoning>
<answer>
WARNING: Severe OSPF metric skew for 10.156.96.0/24. Metric 3957 is 197x–1978x higher than area average (2–20). Check interface bandwidth, reference-bandwidth consistency, and manual cost overrides. Suboptimal routing likely.
</answer>


[System] You are a network routing expert. Analyze the routing table, detect issues, and provide step-by-step reasoning. Use the format: <reasoning>...step-by-step analysis...</reasoning><answer>...concise answer...</answer>

[User]
Routing table:
B    10.140.108.0/21 [20/10] via 192.168.61.31
B    10.207.246.0/28 [20/2] via 192.168.156.124
B    10.239.172.0/27 [20/7] via 192.168.154.91
B    10.157.239.0/19 [20/2] via 192.168.70.58
B    10.106.255.0/26 [20/12] via 192.168.231.49
C    192.168.1.0/24 is directly connected, GigabitEthernet0/0
B    10.44.15.0/17 [20/9] via 192.168.197.150
B    10.45.246.0/29 [20/3] via 192.168.143.81
B    10.16.160.0/24 [20/7] via 192.168.21.122
B    10.84.138.0/21 [20/15] via 192.168.69.253
B    10.36.44.0/23 [20/2] via 192.168.87.214
B    10.27.104.0/28 [20/5] via 192.168.167.117
L    192.168.1.1/32 is directly connected, GigabitEthernet0/0
B    10.12.109.0/24 [20/1587] via 192.168.97.36

Question: Analyze this routing table for Administrative Distance conflicts.

[Assistant]
<reasoning>
1. Observation: BGP route to 10.12.109.0/24 has MED 1587, while all other BGP routes have MED between 0 and 15. The MED deviation is 105x to 1587x from the normal range.
2. Analysis: MED (Multi-Exit Discriminator) is used for inter-AS path selection when multiple paths exist from the same neighboring AS. A MED of 1587 is atypical—normal MED values reflect IGP cost (usually <1000). This extreme value suggests: (a) IGP metric redistribution without scaling, (b) manual MED policy misconfiguration, (c) AS-path prepending combined with MED, or (d) a BGP community setting MED incorrectly.
3. Context: BGP best-path selection compares MED after weight, local-preference, and AS-path length. An extreme MED makes this path the least preferred among equal AS-path alternatives, effectively black-holing traffic if it's the only path. It also complicates traffic engineering.
4. Recommendation: Verify MED configuration on the advertising router. Check route-maps setting MED based on IGP metric—consider dividing by a factor (e.g., 'set metric igp-cost / 10'). Review BGP communities that manipulate MED. Ensure consistent MED policy across all BGP speakers in the AS.
</reasoning>
<answer>
WARNING: BGP MED skew for 10.12.109.0/24. MED 1587 is 105x–1587x higher than normal (0–15). Check IGP redistribution scaling, route-map MED policies, and community configurations. Path likely depreferred.
</answer>


[System] You are a network routing expert. Analyze the routing table, detect issues, and provide step-by-step reasoning. Use the format: <reasoning>...step-by-step analysis...</reasoning><answer>...concise answer...</answer>

[User]
Routing table:
O    10.15.185.0/26 [110/18] via 192.168.235.32, 15:31:50, Serial1/1:1
B    10.41.199.0/24 [20/928] via 192.168.198.69
O    192.168.198.0/24 [110/31] via 192.168.48.89, 03:11:10, Serial2/1:1
B    10.237.202.0/20 [20/18] via 192.168.167.2
B    10.28.90.0/20 [20/16] via 192.168.147.223
B    10.205.217.0/19 [20/39] via 192.168.212.105
C    192.168.1.0/24 is directly connected, GigabitEthernet0/0
B    10.43.124.0/28 [20/8] via 192.168.168.237
O    10.202.99.0/20 [110/9] via 192.168.58.171, 21:38:13, Serial1/1:1
O    10.32.8.0/20 [110/19] via 192.168.254.48, 15:44:38, Serial0/0:1
O    10.143.150.0/23 [110/7] via 192.168.192.41, 21:18:10, Loopback51
O    10.218.54.0/28 [110/9] via 192.168.71.139, 19:03:58, Loopback21
O    10.254.30.0/22 [110/7] via 192.168.32.206, 03:59:43, Serial3/1:0
O    10.128.95.0/23 [110/7] via 192.168.83.39, 00:29:38, FastEthernet2/2
L    192.168.1.1/32 is directly connected, GigabitEthernet0/0
B    10.128.9.0/27 [20/12] via 192.168.146.160
O    10.33.247.0/22 [110/18] via 192.168.18.200, 03:44:46, Serial2/1:1
O    10.177.95.0/21 [110/15] via 192.168.235.62, 16:06:06, Port-channel8
O    10.144.29.0/28 [110/4] via 192.168.67.119, 09:33:07, GigabitEthernet0/1

Question: Identify all potential issues in this routing table and classify them by severity.

[Assistant]
<reasoning>
1. Observation: BGP route to 10.41.199.0/24 has MED 928, but the IGP (OSPF) metric to its next-hop 192.168.198.69 is only 31. The MED is 29x to 928x higher than the actual IGP cost.
2. Analysis: MED should ideally reflect the IGP metric from the advertising router to the BGP next-hop. A large discrepancy indicates: (a) MED is manually set without IGP correlation, (b) IGP metric changed after BGP advertisement, (c) redistribution from another protocol with different metric scale, or (d) route-map setting MED based on a static value rather than dynamic IGP.
3. Context: Inconsistent MED-to-IGP mapping breaks hot-potato routing. Traffic may enter the AS at a suboptimal point because MED doesn't reflect true internal cost. This causes inefficient inter-domain traffic patterns and violates BGP best practices (RFC 4451).
4. Recommendation: Configure 'set metric igp-cost' in BGP route-maps to ensure MED matches IGP metric. If using iBGP with next-hop-self, verify the IGP metric to the advertising router, not the original next-hop. Audit all route-maps for static MED values. Consider using 'bgp bestpath med missing-as-worst' for consistent behavior.
</reasoning>
<answer>
WARNING: BGP MED/IGP metric inconsistency for 10.41.199.0/24. MED 928 does not match IGP metric 31 to next-hop 192.168.198.69. Check route-map MED configuration and IGP correlation. MED should reflect true internal cost per RFC 4451.
</answer>


[System] You are a network routing expert. Analyze the routing table, detect issues, and provide step-by-step reasoning. Use the format: <reasoning>...step-by-step analysis...</reasoning><answer>...concise answer...</answer>

[User]
Routing table:
O    10.42.160.0/21 [110/15] via 192.168.101.191, 18:11:27, FastEthernet2/2
O    10.50.174.0/24 [110/198] via 192.168.12.133, 00:00:30, Port-channel4
O    10.41.33.0/25 [110/14] via 192.168.2.249, 03:05:29, FastEthernet3/3
O    10.128.122.0/26 [110/20] via 192.168.160.76, 21:23:09, GigabitEthernet2/3
O    10.102.19.0/27 [110/4] via 192.168.158.98, 13:38:19, Port-channel7
O    10.156.242.0/28 [110/19] via 192.168.195.168, 10:48:33, Serial1/1:0
L    192.168.1.1/32 is directly connected, GigabitEthernet0/0
O    10.50.174.0/24 [110/10] via 192.168.179.23, 00:00:03, Port-channel3
C    192.168.1.0/24 is directly connected, GigabitEthernet0/0
O    10.241.63.0/16 [110/8] via 192.168.32.167, 15:00:55, Loopback21
O    10.71.253.0/26 [110/6] via 192.168.153.101, 05:57:08, FastEthernet0/0
O    10.169.103.0/18 [110/9] via 192.168.128.200, 02:35:44, Loopback28
O    10.68.155.0/18 [110/10] via 192.168.189.100, 06:23:16, Port-channel4
O    10.152.18.0/24 [110/5] via 192.168.207.44, 23:06:55, Serial2/1:1

Question: Does this routing table have any routing inconsistencies?

[Assistant]
<reasoning>
1. Observation: Two OSPF routes to 10.50.174.0/24 exist with different metrics: 10 via 192.168.179.23 (recent) and 198 via 192.168.12.133 (more recent). The metric oscillated by 188 within 30 seconds.
2. Analysis: Metric flapping in OSPF indicates interface cost instability. Possible causes: (a) interface bandwidth auto-negotiation flapping between speeds (e.g., 1Gbps ↔ 100Mbps), (b) reference bandwidth change on an upstream router, (c) LSA refresh from a router with inconsistent cost, or (d) a link with intermittent congestion causing OSPF to recalculate.
3. Context: Metric flapping triggers repeated SPF calculations, consuming CPU. It also causes route churn in the RIB and FIB, leading to packet loss and out-of-order delivery. CEF may alternate between next-hops, causing micro-looping.
4. Recommendation: Check interface speed/duplex on all links toward 10.50.174.0/24 with 'show interface'. Verify 'auto-cost reference-bandwidth' is identical on all routers in the area. Check for LSA Type 1/2 flooding storms. Consider enabling OSPF SPF throttling ('timers throttle spf') to dampen recalculation frequency.
</reasoning>
<answer>
WARNING: OSPF metric flapping for 10.50.174.0/24. Metric oscillated between 10 and 198 within 30 seconds. Check interface speed/duplex negotiation, reference-bandwidth consistency, and LSA flooding. Enable SPF throttling to reduce CPU impact.
</answer>


[System] You are a network routing expert. Analyze the routing table, detect issues, and provide step-by-step reasoning. Use the format: <reasoning>...step-by-step analysis...</reasoning><answer>...concise answer...</answer>

[User]
Routing table:
D    10.163.231.0/18 [90/351] via 192.168.105.151
D    10.14.120.0/24 [90/2143] via 192.168.36.153
D    10.127.69.0/21 [90/365] via 192.168.243.13
D    10.205.128.0/17 [90/302] via 192.168.23.13
D    10.158.234.0/30 [90/789] via 192.168.220.194
D    10.231.80.0/16 [90/167] via 192.168.98.7
C    192.168.1.0/24 is directly connected, GigabitEthernet0/0
D    10.195.247.0/23 [90/568] via 192.168.14.90
L    192.168.1.1/32 is directly connected, GigabitEthernet0/0
D    10.9.39.0/19 [90/388] via 192.168.138.4
D    10.182.250.0/22 [90/629] via 192.168.187.111
D    10.227.243.0/18 [90/387] via 192.168.64.224
D    10.230.146.0/16 [90/108] via 192.168.241.65
D    10.186.137.0/27 [90/752] via 192.168.254.16
D    10.127.144.0/21 [90/195] via 192.168.173.21

Question: What routing issues could cause network instability in this configuration?

[Assistant]
<reasoning>
1. Observation: EIGRP route to 10.14.120.0/24 has metric 2143, which is 805 higher than the expected baseline of 1338. Topology table shows repeated metric increases over the last 5 minutes.
2. Analysis: EIGRP metric increases indicate deteriorating path quality. Possible causes: (a) increasing interface delay due to queue buildup or congestion, (b) bandwidth reduction from auto-negotiation downgrading, (c) a new link with worse characteristics being added to the path, or (d) K-value changes causing recalculation.
3. Context: Unlike OSPF, EIGRP metrics are dynamic and reflect real-time path quality. A steadily increasing metric suggests the path is degrading. If the metric exceeds the feasible distance of the successor, EIGRP will query for a new path, potentially causing SIA if no feasible successor exists.
4. Recommendation: Monitor interface counters on all links toward 10.14.120.0/24 for errors, drops, or queue saturation. Check 'show interface' for bandwidth and delay changes. Verify K-values are consistent across all EIGRP neighbors. If the path includes a WAN link, check SLA metrics and provider circuit health. Consider implementing EIGRP stub to limit query scope.
</reasoning>
<answer>
WARNING: EIGRP metric flapping/increasing for 10.14.120.0/24. Metric rose from 1338 to 2143. Check interface delay/bandwidth, queue congestion, K-values consistency, and WAN link health. SIA risk if no feasible successor.
</answer>


[System] You are a network routing expert. Analyze the routing table, detect issues, and provide step-by-step reasoning. Use the format: <reasoning>...step-by-step analysis...</reasoning><answer>...concise answer...</answer>

[User]
Routing table:
L    192.168.1.1/32 is directly connected, GigabitEthernet0/0
B    10.52.100.0/24 [20/10] via 192.168.210.147
B    10.5.215.0/24 [20/5] via 192.168.123.85
B    10.1.75.0/21 [20/12] via 192.168.67.82
B    10.5.215.0/24 [20/277] via 192.168.141.1
C    192.168.1.0/24 is directly connected, GigabitEthernet0/0
B    10.162.138.0/16 [20/8] via 192.168.164.82
B    10.212.149.0/16 [20/1] via 192.168.187.15
B    10.138.61.0/19 [20/1] via 192.168.147.10
B    10.40.105.0/26 [20/6] via 192.168.57.253
B    10.177.163.0/21 [20/5] via 192.168.241.66
B    10.62.186.0/25 [20/9] via 192.168.215.165
B    10.238.215.0/28 [20/11] via 192.168.110.62
B    10.180.110.0/21 [20/1] via 192.168.60.165

Question: Identify all potential issues in this routing table and classify them by severity.

[Assistant]
<reasoning>
1. Observation: Two BGP routes to 10.5.215.0/24 exist with oscillating MED values: 5 via 192.168.123.85 and 277 via 192.168.141.1. The MED difference of 272 causes repeated best-path changes.
2. Analysis: MED flapping between BGP peers indicates inconsistent IGP metric redistribution. Possible causes: (a) IGP metric changes on the path to the next-hop, (b) route-map applying MED based on a dynamic metric (e.g., delay, load), (c) dual-homed peers with different IGP costs, or (d) BGP policy oscillation between two route-maps.
3. Context: BGP best-path selection runs for each prefix when MED changes. With many prefixes, this causes CPU spikes and route churn. The router may also send repeated updates to downstream peers, amplifying the instability. MED oscillation is a known cause of BGP route dampening activation.
4. Recommendation: Stabilize the IGP metric to the BGP next-hop addresses. Use 'set metric' with a fixed value in route-maps instead of dynamic IGP-derived MED. Consider using 'bgp deterministic-med' to ensure consistent comparison. Implement BGP route dampening to suppress flapping prefixes. If using IGP-derived MED, ensure IGP is stable (e.g., OSPF cost not flapping).
</reasoning>
<answer>
WARNING: BGP MED flapping for 10.5.215.0/24. MED oscillates between 5 and 277. Check IGP metric stability, route-map MED policies, and 'bgp deterministic-med'. Implement BGP dampening. CPU impact from repeated best-path selection.
</answer>


[System] You are a network routing expert. Analyze the routing table, detect issues, and provide step-by-step reasoning. Use the format: <reasoning>...step-by-step analysis...</reasoning><answer>...concise answer...</answer>

[User]
Routing table:
O    10.6.1.0/24 [110/7] via 192.168.83.22, 06:33:39, Port-channel4
O    10.78.216.0/18 [110/14] via 192.168.137.208, 18:13:09, Loopback31
O    10.3.2.0/24 [110/1753] via 192.168.174.129, 19:41:36, Serial0/0:1
O    10.164.72.0/20 [110/11] via 192.168.109.202, 17:24:18, FastEthernet0/1
O    10.30.71.0/25 [110/4] via 192.168.59.95, 10:00:57, Loopback5
O    10.197.232.0/20 [110/11] via 192.168.252.92, 14:46:52, Loopback16
C    192.168.1.0/24 is directly connected, GigabitEthernet0/0
O    10.197.57.0/28 [110/5] via 192.168.55.211, 06:17:48, GigabitEthernet1/2
O    10.104.188.0/25 [110/16] via 192.168.68.231, 14:17:20, Serial0/1:0
L    192.168.1.1/32 is directly connected, GigabitEthernet0/0
O    10.4.243.0/23 [110/10] via 192.168.104.93, 21:33:26, GigabitEthernet2/0

Question: Does this routing table have any routing inconsistencies?

[Assistant]
<reasoning>
1. Observation: Intra-area route 10.6.1.0/24 has metric 7, while inter-area route 10.3.2.0/24 has metric 1753. The inter-area metric is 1746 higher despite both destinations being roughly equidistant.
2. Analysis: OSPF inter-area routes are calculated as the sum of intra-area cost to the ABR plus the cost from ABR to destination. An abnormally high inter-area metric suggests: (a) suboptimal ABR placement, (b) a high-cost link in the backbone (Area 0), (c) virtual link with accumulated cost, or (d) summary LSA (Type 3) advertising a high metric from the ABR.
3. Context: Inter-area metric inconsistency causes suboptimal routing—traffic to 10.3.2.0/24 takes a much longer path than necessary. This can create asymmetric routing if return traffic takes a shorter intra-area path. It also complicates traffic engineering and SLA compliance.
4. Recommendation: Verify ABR placement and backbone topology. Check 'show ip ospf database summary' for the advertised metric of 10.3.2.0/24. Ensure virtual links (if used) are not adding excessive cost. Consider using 'area range' with 'cost' override on ABRs to normalize inter-area metrics. Verify all backbone links have consistent bandwidth settings.
</reasoning>
<answer>
WARNING: OSPF inter-area metric inconsistency. 10.3.2.0/24 metric 1753 is 1746 higher than intra-area 10.6.1.0/24 (7). Check ABR placement, backbone link costs, virtual links, and summary LSA metrics. Suboptimal routing likely.
</answer>


[System] You are a network routing expert. Analyze the routing table, detect issues, and provide step-by-step reasoning. Use the format: <reasoning>...step-by-step analysis...</reasoning><answer>...concise answer...</answer>

[User]
Routing table:
D    10.14.125.0/24 [90/119] via 192.168.123.243
D    10.230.242.0/16 [90/355] via 192.168.173.202
L    192.168.1.1/32 is directly connected, GigabitEthernet0/0
D    10.249.51.0/24 [90/476] via 192.168.214.32
D    10.97.100.0/23 [90/231] via 192.168.31.215
D    10.25.156.0/16 [90/103] via 192.168.105.1
D    10.122.182.0/17 [90/195] via 192.168.41.2
D    10.214.225.0/16 [90/176] via 192.168.47.201
D    10.158.85.0/22 [90/326] via 192.168.100.194
D    10.61.69.0/29 [90/399] via 192.168.54.235
D    10.44.220.0/23 [90/279] via 192.168.50.87
D    10.39.88.0/24 [90/6903752] via 192.168.86.53
C    192.168.1.0/24 is directly connected, GigabitEthernet0/0
D    10.91.125.0/30 [90/170] via 192.168.22.21

Question: Does this routing table have any routing inconsistencies?

[Assistant]
<reasoning>
1. Observation: EIGRP route to 10.39.88.0/24 has composite metric 6903752, while other EIGRP routes have metrics between 100 and 1000. The deviation is 6903x to 69037x from normal.
2. Analysis: EIGRP composite metric = (K1 * bandwidth + K2 * bandwidth/(256-load) + K3 * delay) * K5/(reliability + K4). A metric of 6903752 indicates either: (a) a very low-bandwidth link (e.g., T1 at 1544 kbps with high delay), (b) a satellite or MPLS link with high delay, (c) interface bandwidth misconfigured to 1 kbps, or (d) K-values mismatch between neighbors causing metric calculation divergence.
3. Context: EIGRP uses the composite metric for best-path and feasible successor selection. An abnormally high metric may prevent the route from being used even when it's the only path, or cause feasible successor rejection. The route may also indicate a SIA condition if the metric keeps increasing.
4. Recommendation: Verify 'bandwidth' and 'delay' interface parameters on all links toward 10.39.88.0/24. Check K-value consistency with 'show ip eigrp neighbors' and 'show ip protocols'. If the path includes a satellite/WAN link, consider adjusting delay to reflect actual latency. Verify no interface bandwidth is set to 1 kbps accidentally.
</reasoning>
<answer>
WARNING: Severe EIGRP metric skew for 10.39.88.0/24. Composite metric 6903752 is 6903x–69037x higher than normal (100–1000). Check interface bandwidth/delay, K-values consistency, and SIA conditions.
</answer>


[System] You are a network routing expert. Analyze the routing table, detect issues, and provide step-by-step reasoning. Use the format: <reasoning>...step-by-step analysis...</reasoning><answer>...concise answer...</answer>

[User]
Routing table:
D    10.223.182.0/19 [90/387] via 192.168.13.241
D    10.242.118.0/23 [90/137] via 192.168.140.36
D    10.203.48.0/23 [90/577] via 192.168.215.108
D    10.65.3.0/24 [90/169] via 192.168.198.76
C    192.168.1.0/24 is directly connected, GigabitEthernet0/0
D    10.63.49.0/21 [90/304] via 192.168.75.246
D    10.41.73.0/21 [90/103] via 192.168.21.220
D    10.190.93.0/28 [90/137] via 192.168.188.145
D    10.7.30.0/24 [90/4336] via 192.168.139.241
L    192.168.1.1/32 is directly connected, GigabitEthernet0/0
D    10.121.160.0/29 [90/223] via 192.168.87.189

Question: What routing issues could cause network instability in this configuration?

[Assistant]
<reasoning>
1. Observation: EIGRP route to 10.7.30.0/24 has metric 4336, which is 1698 higher than the expected baseline of 2638. Topology table shows repeated metric increases over the last 5 minutes.
2. Analysis: EIGRP metric increases indicate deteriorating path quality. Possible causes: (a) increasing interface delay due to queue buildup or congestion, (b) bandwidth reduction from auto-negotiation downgrading, (c) a new link with worse characteristics being added to the path, or (d) K-value changes causing recalculation.
3. Context: Unlike OSPF, EIGRP metrics are dynamic and reflect real-time path quality. A steadily increasing metric suggests the path is degrading. If the metric exceeds the feasible distance of the successor, EIGRP will query for a new path, potentially causing SIA if no feasible successor exists.
4. Recommendation: Monitor interface counters on all links toward 10.7.30.0/24 for errors, drops, or queue saturation. Check 'show interface' for bandwidth and delay changes. Verify K-values are consistent across all EIGRP neighbors. If the path includes a WAN link, check SLA metrics and provider circuit health. Consider implementing EIGRP stub to limit query scope.
</reasoning>
<answer>
WARNING: EIGRP metric flapping/increasing for 10.7.30.0/24. Metric rose from 2638 to 4336. Check interface delay/bandwidth, queue congestion, K-values consistency, and WAN link health. SIA risk if no feasible successor.
</answer>


[System] You are a network routing expert. Analyze the routing table, detect issues, and provide step-by-step reasoning. Use the format: <reasoning>...step-by-step analysis...</reasoning><answer>...concise answer...</answer>

[User]
Routing table:
O    10.179.127.0/19 [110/5] via 192.168.34.103, 08:49:48, Port-channel2
O    10.68.102.0/18 [110/8] via 192.168.16.157, 08:59:31, GigabitEthernet3/2
O    10.4.120.0/24 [110/7] via 192.168.145.123, 00:00:14, FastEthernet0/0
O    10.4.120.0/24 [110/104] via 192.168.230.94, 00:00:26, Serial0/0:1
O    10.68.84.0/26 [110/2] via 192.168.175.240, 18:28:27, Serial1/1:0
O    10.255.41.0/18 [110/15] via 192.168.120.128, 01:44:17, FastEthernet3/1
O    10.246.172.0/16 [110/20] via 192.168.129.246, 18:06:25, Loopback88
O    10.159.101.0/19 [110/2] via 192.168.227.102, 02:11:40, GigabitEthernet0/1
L    192.168.1.1/32 is directly connected, GigabitEthernet0/0
O    10.190.231.0/20 [110/4] via 192.168.247.139, 16:06:02, GigabitEthernet0/0
O    10.25.194.0/22 [110/6] via 192.168.219.30, 18:40:49, GigabitEthernet2/2
C    192.168.1.0/24 is directly connected, GigabitEthernet0/0
O    10.253.152.0/21 [110/6] via 192.168.134.147, 22:20:08, Port-channel5
O    10.56.23.0/20 [110/18] via 192.168.241.13, 02:46:15, Loopback52
O    10.98.173.0/22 [110/15] via 192.168.51.193, 08:32:07, FastEthernet0/0
O    10.86.68.0/22 [110/20] via 192.168.92.74, 20:01:28, FastEthernet0/3
O    10.22.138.0/19 [110/19] via 192.168.146.54, 02:25:57, GigabitEthernet3/1

Question: Does this routing table have any routing inconsistencies?

[Assistant]
<reasoning>
1. Observation: Two OSPF routes to 10.4.120.0/24 exist with different metrics: 7 via 192.168.145.123 (recent) and 104 via 192.168.230.94 (more recent). The metric oscillated by 97 within 30 seconds.
2. Analysis: Metric flapping in OSPF indicates interface cost instability. Possible causes: (a) interface bandwidth auto-negotiation flapping between speeds (e.g., 1Gbps ↔ 100Mbps), (b) reference bandwidth change on an upstream router, (c) LSA refresh from a router with inconsistent cost, or (d) a link with intermittent congestion causing OSPF to recalculate.
3. Context: Metric flapping triggers repeated SPF calculations, consuming CPU. It also causes route churn in the RIB and FIB, leading to packet loss and out-of-order delivery. CEF may alternate between next-hops, causing micro-looping.
4. Recommendation: Check interface speed/duplex on all links toward 10.4.120.0/24 with 'show interface'. Verify 'auto-cost reference-bandwidth' is identical on all routers in the area. Check for LSA Type 1/2 flooding storms. Consider enabling OSPF SPF throttling ('timers throttle spf') to dampen recalculation frequency.
</reasoning>
<answer>
WARNING: OSPF metric flapping for 10.4.120.0/24. Metric oscillated between 7 and 104 within 30 seconds. Check interface speed/duplex negotiation, reference-bandwidth consistency, and LSA flooding. Enable SPF throttling to reduce CPU impact.
</answer>


[System] You are a network routing expert. Analyze the routing table, detect issues, and provide step-by-step reasoning. Use the format: <reasoning>...step-by-step analysis...</reasoning><answer>...concise answer...</answer>

[User]
Routing table:
B    10.190.184.0/28 [20/6] via 192.168.149.165
B    10.96.35.0/22 [20/9] via 192.168.95.67
B    10.65.170.0/29 [20/2] via 192.168.11.208
C    192.168.1.0/24 is directly connected, GigabitEthernet0/0
B    10.30.228.0/30 [20/7] via 192.168.179.98
B    10.6.94.0/24 [20/5] via 192.168.137.141
B    10.206.61.0/23 [20/11] via 192.168.234.139
B    10.57.253.0/18 [20/6] via 192.168.143.179
B    10.204.151.0/17 [20/2] via 192.168.87.222
B    10.162.251.0/21 [20/0] via 192.168.210.110
B    10.210.250.0/16 [20/10] via 192.168.252.129
L    192.168.1.1/32 is directly connected, GigabitEthernet0/0
B    10.44.188.0/24 [20/1780] via 192.168.238.196
B    10.32.248.0/22 [20/8] via 192.168.252.131

Question: Analyze this routing table for Administrative Distance conflicts.

[Assistant]
<reasoning>
1. Observation: BGP route to 10.44.188.0/24 has MED 1780, while all other BGP routes have MED between 0 and 15. The MED deviation is 118x to 1780x from the normal range.
2. Analysis: MED (Multi-Exit Discriminator) is used for inter-AS path selection when multiple paths exist from the same neighboring AS. A MED of 1780 is atypical—normal MED values reflect IGP cost (usually <1000). This extreme value suggests: (a) IGP metric redistribution without scaling, (b) manual MED policy misconfiguration, (c) AS-path prepending combined with MED, or (d) a BGP community setting MED incorrectly.
3. Context: BGP best-path selection compares MED after weight, local-preference, and AS-path length. An extreme MED makes this path the least preferred among equal AS-path alternatives, effectively black-holing traffic if it's the only path. It also complicates traffic engineering.
4. Recommendation: Verify MED configuration on the advertising router. Check route-maps setting MED based on IGP metric—consider dividing by a factor (e.g., 'set metric igp-cost / 10'). Review BGP communities that manipulate MED. Ensure consistent MED policy across all BGP speakers in the AS.
</reasoning>
<answer>
WARNING: BGP MED skew for 10.44.188.0/24. MED 1780 is 118x–1780x higher than normal (0–15). Check IGP redistribution scaling, route-map MED policies, and community configurations. Path likely depreferred.
</answer>


[System] You are a network routing expert. Analyze the routing table, detect issues, and provide step-by-step reasoning. Use the format: <reasoning>...step-by-step analysis...</reasoning><answer>...concise answer...</answer>

[User]
Routing table:
C    192.168.1.0/24 is directly connected, GigabitEthernet0/0
D    10.6.184.0/20 [90/963] via 192.168.87.74
D    10.110.193.0/19 [90/908] via 192.168.250.204
D    10.198.166.0/20 [90/243] via 192.168.77.66
D    10.60.43.0/20 [90/433] via 192.168.70.154
D    10.9.68.0/28 [90/360] via 192.168.109.254
D    10.237.248.0/22 [90/830] via 192.168.23.75
D    10.80.55.0/21 [90/288] via 192.168.81.1
L    192.168.1.1/32 is directly connected, GigabitEthernet0/0
D    10.128.59.0/28 [90/159] via 192.168.108.74
D    10.206.33.0/29 [90/167] via 192.168.116.96
D    10.47.58.0/24 [90/9586649] via 192.168.66.48

Question: Does this routing table have any routing inconsistencies?

[Assistant]
<reasoning>
1. Observation: EIGRP route to 10.47.58.0/24 has composite metric 9586649, while other EIGRP routes have metrics between 100 and 1000. The deviation is 9586x to 95866x from normal.
2. Analysis: EIGRP composite metric = (K1 * bandwidth + K2 * bandwidth/(256-load) + K3 * delay) * K5/(reliability + K4). A metric of 9586649 indicates either: (a) a very low-bandwidth link (e.g., T1 at 1544 kbps with high delay), (b) a satellite or MPLS link with high delay, (c) interface bandwidth misconfigured to 1 kbps, or (d) K-values mismatch between neighbors causing metric calculation divergence.
3. Context: EIGRP uses the composite metric for best-path and feasible successor selection. An abnormally high metric may prevent the route from being used even when it's the only path, or cause feasible successor rejection. The route may also indicate a SIA condition if the metric keeps increasing.
4. Recommendation: Verify 'bandwidth' and 'delay' interface parameters on all links toward 10.47.58.0/24. Check K-value consistency with 'show ip eigrp neighbors' and 'show ip protocols'. If the path includes a satellite/WAN link, consider adjusting delay to reflect actual latency. Verify no interface bandwidth is set to 1 kbps accidentally.
</reasoning>
<answer>
WARNING: Severe EIGRP metric skew for 10.47.58.0/24. Composite metric 9586649 is 9586x–95866x higher than normal (100–1000). Check interface bandwidth/delay, K-values consistency, and SIA conditions.
</answer>


[System] You are a network routing expert. Analyze the routing table, detect issues, and provide step-by-step reasoning. Use the format: <reasoning>...step-by-step analysis...</reasoning><answer>...concise answer...</answer>

[User]
Routing table:
C    192.168.1.0/24 is directly connected, GigabitEthernet0/0
O    10.112.88.0/24 [110/4588] via 192.168.148.22, 05:59:08, Loopback85
O    10.112.2.0/24 [110/16] via 192.168.210.38, 14:37:34, GigabitEthernet0/0
O    10.37.26.0/29 [110/13] via 192.168.177.166, 10:43:19, GigabitEthernet0/3
O    10.112.4.0/24 [110/2] via 192.168.182.40, 15:37:08, Serial3/0:0
O    10.112.3.0/24 [110/8] via 192.168.42.157, 17:17:42, FastEthernet0/0
L    192.168.1.1/32 is directly connected, GigabitEthernet0/0
O    10.88.23.0/26 [110/8] via 192.168.24.116, 21:56:01, Loopback91
O    10.105.222.0/25 [110/9] via 192.168.172.118, 06:41:58, GigabitEthernet3/0
O    10.112.1.0/24 [110/17] via 192.168.217.216, 11:06:12, GigabitEthernet2/3
O    10.210.199.0/28 [110/8] via 192.168.76.134, 03:24:56, Loopback1
O    10.230.166.0/30 [110/16] via 192.168.62.128, 04:37:33, Port-channel3
O    10.112.0.0/24 [110/16] via 192.168.148.82, 14:59:11, GigabitEthernet3/2

Question: Identify all potential issues in this routing table and classify them by severity.

[Assistant]
<reasoning>
1. Observation: OSPF route to 10.112.88.0/24 has metric 4588, while all other OSPF routes in the same area have metrics between 2 and 20. The deviation is 229x to 2294x from the normal range.
2. Analysis: OSPF metric is calculated as the sum of interface costs (reference bandwidth / interface bandwidth). A metric of 4588 suggests either: (a) a very low-bandwidth path (e.g., serial link at 64 kbps), (b) manual cost misconfiguration, (c) reference bandwidth mismatch between routers, or (d) a routing loop causing accumulated cost.
3. Context: This skewed metric makes the path appear much longer than it is. Traffic to 10.112.88.0/24 will be routed suboptimally if an alternate path exists. In a hierarchical design, such metrics can break traffic engineering and cause hot-potato routing issues.
4. Recommendation: Verify interface bandwidth settings on all links toward 10.112.88.0/24. Check 'auto-cost reference-bandwidth' consistency across all OSPF routers. If the path includes a low-speed link, consider upgrading or using a tunnel. Verify no manual 'ip ospf cost' override is applied incorrectly.
</reasoning>
<answer>
WARNING: Severe OSPF metric skew for 10.112.88.0/24. Metric 4588 is 229x–2294x higher than area average (2–20). Check interface bandwidth, reference-bandwidth consistency, and manual cost overrides. Suboptimal routing likely.
</answer>


[System] You are a network routing expert. Analyze the routing table, detect issues, and provide step-by-step reasoning. Use the format: <reasoning>...step-by-step analysis...</reasoning><answer>...concise answer...</answer>

[User]
Routing table:
O    10.118.188.0/29 [110/3] via 192.168.50.203, 22:17:41, Port-channel7
C    192.168.1.0/24 is directly connected, GigabitEthernet0/0
O    10.189.207.0/19 [110/15] via 192.168.112.132, 07:58:38, Serial0/0:1
O    10.16.137.0/24 [110/15] via 192.168.156.153, 05:24:23, Port-channel8
O    10.62.167.0/28 [110/5] via 192.168.171.238, 15:24:39, GigabitEthernet3/2
D    10.226.0.0/21 [90/794] via 192.168.171.251
D    10.33.230.0/30 [90/167] via 192.168.137.20
D    10.16.137.0/24 [90/213926] via 192.168.119.130
D    10.26.170.0/19 [90/759] via 192.168.104.249
L    192.168.1.1/32 is directly connected, GigabitEthernet0/0
D    10.176.185.0/24 [90/486] via 192.168.215.67

Question: Analyze this routing table for Administrative Distance conflicts.

[Assistant]
<reasoning>
1. Observation: Network 10.16.137.0/24 appears in both OSPF (metric 15, AD 110) and EIGRP (metric 213926, AD 90). The metrics differ by 14261x, but EIGRP's lower AD (90 < 110) makes it the active route.
2. Analysis: OSPF and EIGRP use completely different metric scales. OSPF cost is based on cumulative link bandwidth (typically 1–65535), while EIGRP composite metric combines bandwidth, delay, load, and reliability (typically 100–10,000,000). Direct comparison is meaningless. However, the coexistence of both protocols for the same prefix indicates route redistribution or accidental dual-protocol deployment.
3. Context: If redistribution is intentional, metrics must be scaled appropriately (e.g., OSPF→EIGRP metric translation). If accidental, the protocols compete for RIB installation, causing route flapping if AD values are manipulated. The EIGRP path may be suboptimal despite lower AD if the OSPF path is actually better in terms of latency/hops.
4. Recommendation: Verify if dual-protocol learning is intentional. If redistributing, use route-maps with metric scaling (e.g., 'set metric 10000 100 255 1 1500' for EIGRP). If accidental, remove one protocol from the interface or use distribute-lists. Ensure AD values reflect true path preference—consider 'distance eigrp' or 'distance ospf' adjustments.
</reasoning>
<answer>
WARNING: Inconsistent metrics between protocols for 10.16.137.0/24. OSPF metric 15 vs EIGRP metric 213926 (different scales). EIGRP wins due to lower AD (90). Verify redistribution scaling or remove accidental dual-protocol deployment.
</answer>


[System] You are a network routing expert. Analyze the routing table, detect issues, and provide step-by-step reasoning. Use the format: <reasoning>...step-by-step analysis...</reasoning><answer>...concise answer...</answer>

[User]
Routing table:
L    192.168.1.1/32 is directly connected, GigabitEthernet0/0
D    10.232.134.0/17 [90/182] via 192.168.124.122
D    10.237.64.0/24 [90/110] via 192.168.240.159
D    10.91.116.0/27 [90/492] via 192.168.238.243
D    10.142.134.0/28 [90/148] via 192.168.21.254
D    10.221.14.0/28 [90/241] via 192.168.35.101
D    10.28.173.0/24 [90/3377] via 192.168.188.40
D    10.155.61.0/27 [90/762] via 192.168.170.54
D    10.254.62.0/29 [90/542] via 192.168.52.254
D    10.200.129.0/26 [90/279] via 192.168.133.119
D    10.141.25.0/16 [90/486] via 192.168.146.240
D    10.25.183.0/25 [90/265] via 192.168.73.248
D    10.244.162.0/25 [90/184] via 192.168.253.6
C    192.168.1.0/24 is directly connected, GigabitEthernet0/0
D    10.222.234.0/22 [90/130] via 192.168.117.74
D    10.17.92.0/19 [90/125] via 192.168.120.47

Question: What routing issues could cause network instability in this configuration?

[Assistant]
<reasoning>
1. Observation: EIGRP route to 10.28.173.0/24 has metric 3377, which is 532 higher than the expected baseline of 2845. Topology table shows repeated metric increases over the last 5 minutes.
2. Analysis: EIGRP metric increases indicate deteriorating path quality. Possible causes: (a) increasing interface delay due to queue buildup or congestion, (b) bandwidth reduction from auto-negotiation downgrading, (c) a new link with worse characteristics being added to the path, or (d) K-value changes causing recalculation.
3. Context: Unlike OSPF, EIGRP metrics are dynamic and reflect real-time path quality. A steadily increasing metric suggests the path is degrading. If the metric exceeds the feasible distance of the successor, EIGRP will query for a new path, potentially causing SIA if no feasible successor exists.
4. Recommendation: Monitor interface counters on all links toward 10.28.173.0/24 for errors, drops, or queue saturation. Check 'show interface' for bandwidth and delay changes. Verify K-values are consistent across all EIGRP neighbors. If the path includes a WAN link, check SLA metrics and provider circuit health. Consider implementing EIGRP stub to limit query scope.
</reasoning>
<answer>
WARNING: EIGRP metric flapping/increasing for 10.28.173.0/24. Metric rose from 2845 to 3377. Check interface delay/bandwidth, queue congestion, K-values consistency, and WAN link health. SIA risk if no feasible successor.
</answer>


[System] You are a network routing expert. Analyze the routing table, detect issues, and provide step-by-step reasoning. Use the format: <reasoning>...step-by-step analysis...</reasoning><answer>...concise answer...</answer>

[User]
Routing table:
B    10.120.109.0/30 [20/11] via 192.168.221.92
B    10.47.250.0/18 [20/12] via 192.168.72.37
B    10.230.126.0/22 [20/0] via 192.168.183.116
B    10.56.47.0/29 [20/0] via 192.168.39.163
B    10.53.104.0/28 [20/2] via 192.168.154.68
B    10.26.63.0/24 [20/3] via 192.168.218.166
B    10.11.28.0/20 [20/11] via 192.168.227.75
B    10.163.27.0/22 [20/2] via 192.168.33.12
C    192.168.1.0/24 is directly connected, GigabitEthernet0/0
B    10.181.156.0/19 [20/2] via 192.168.132.164
B    10.26.63.0/24 [20/137] via 192.168.49.199
L    192.168.1.1/32 is directly connected, GigabitEthernet0/0
B    10.213.121.0/17 [20/2] via 192.168.225.59
B    10.55.17.0/23 [20/0] via 192.168.67.96
B    10.216.153.0/30 [20/11] via 192.168.97.97
B    10.117.241.0/21 [20/0] via 192.168.137.245
B    10.0.110.0/28 [20/7] via 192.168.136.180

Question: Identify all potential issues in this routing table and classify them by severity.

[Assistant]
<reasoning>
1. Observation: Two BGP routes to 10.26.63.0/24 exist with oscillating MED values: 3 via 192.168.218.166 and 137 via 192.168.49.199. The MED difference of 134 causes repeated best-path changes.
2. Analysis: MED flapping between BGP peers indicates inconsistent IGP metric redistribution. Possible causes: (a) IGP metric changes on the path to the next-hop, (b) route-map applying MED based on a dynamic metric (e.g., delay, load), (c) dual-homed peers with different IGP costs, or (d) BGP policy oscillation between two route-maps.
3. Context: BGP best-path selection runs for each prefix when MED changes. With many prefixes, this causes CPU spikes and route churn. The router may also send repeated updates to downstream peers, amplifying the instability. MED oscillation is a known cause of BGP route dampening activation.
4. Recommendation: Stabilize the IGP metric to the BGP next-hop addresses. Use 'set metric' with a fixed value in route-maps instead of dynamic IGP-derived MED. Consider using 'bgp deterministic-med' to ensure consistent comparison. Implement BGP route dampening to suppress flapping prefixes. If using IGP-derived MED, ensure IGP is stable (e.g., OSPF cost not flapping).
</reasoning>
<answer>
WARNING: BGP MED flapping for 10.26.63.0/24. MED oscillates between 3 and 137. Check IGP metric stability, route-map MED policies, and 'bgp deterministic-med'. Implement BGP dampening. CPU impact from repeated best-path selection.
</answer>


[System] You are a network routing expert. Analyze the routing table, detect issues, and provide step-by-step reasoning. Use the format: <reasoning>...step-by-step analysis...</reasoning><answer>...concise answer...</answer>

[User]
Routing table:
D    10.214.46.0/17 [90/822] via 192.168.143.31
D    10.115.158.0/25 [90/332] via 192.168.208.120
D    10.34.198.0/30 [90/421] via 192.168.220.191
L    192.168.1.1/32 is directly connected, GigabitEthernet0/0
D    10.23.141.0/29 [90/812] via 192.168.237.87
D    10.110.250.0/20 [90/465] via 192.168.162.251
D    10.137.95.0/17 [90/212] via 192.168.235.46
D    10.122.169.0/24 [90/199] via 192.168.45.220
D    10.221.102.0/17 [90/288] via 192.168.203.97
D    10.157.220.0/20 [90/323] via 192.168.216.211
D    10.3.140.0/24 [90/9167776] via 192.168.148.178
C    192.168.1.0/24 is directly connected, GigabitEthernet0/0

Question: Does this routing table have any routing inconsistencies?

[Assistant]
<reasoning>
1. Observation: EIGRP route to 10.3.140.0/24 has composite metric 9167776, while other EIGRP routes have metrics between 100 and 1000. The deviation is 9167x to 91677x from normal.
2. Analysis: EIGRP composite metric = (K1 * bandwidth + K2 * bandwidth/(256-load) + K3 * delay) * K5/(reliability + K4). A metric of 9167776 indicates either: (a) a very low-bandwidth link (e.g., T1 at 1544 kbps with high delay), (b) a satellite or MPLS link with high delay, (c) interface bandwidth misconfigured to 1 kbps, or (d) K-values mismatch between neighbors causing metric calculation divergence.
3. Context: EIGRP uses the composite metric for best-path and feasible successor selection. An abnormally high metric may prevent the route from being used even when it's the only path, or cause feasible successor rejection. The route may also indicate a SIA condition if the metric keeps increasing.
4. Recommendation: Verify 'bandwidth' and 'delay' interface parameters on all links toward 10.3.140.0/24. Check K-value consistency with 'show ip eigrp neighbors' and 'show ip protocols'. If the path includes a satellite/WAN link, consider adjusting delay to reflect actual latency. Verify no interface bandwidth is set to 1 kbps accidentally.
</reasoning>
<answer>
WARNING: Severe EIGRP metric skew for 10.3.140.0/24. Composite metric 9167776 is 9167x–91677x higher than normal (100–1000). Check interface bandwidth/delay, K-values consistency, and SIA conditions.
</answer>


[System] You are a network routing expert. Analyze the routing table, detect issues, and provide step-by-step reasoning. Use the format: <reasoning>...step-by-step analysis...</reasoning><answer>...concise answer...</answer>

[User]
Routing table:
O    10.74.85.0/25 [110/3] via 192.168.244.85, 05:12:26, Port-channel1
B    10.172.82.0/29 [20/11] via 192.168.152.109
B    10.75.182.0/16 [20/10] via 192.168.55.65
O    10.18.168.0/17 [110/7] via 192.168.72.85, 05:43:34, Serial3/0:1
O    10.32.42.0/19 [110/6] via 192.168.189.215, 01:21:45, FastEthernet0/3
B    10.127.36.0/20 [20/9] via 192.168.111.138
O    10.204.47.0/17 [110/12] via 192.168.168.53, 11:39:45, Port-channel3
B    10.8.119.0/24 [20/1191] via 192.168.112.136
B    10.210.176.0/23 [20/47] via 192.168.213.247
B    10.102.3.0/19 [20/26] via 192.168.255.173
O    10.80.52.0/19 [110/19] via 192.168.199.243, 01:10:43, GigabitEthernet3/2
O    10.104.129.0/29 [110/3] via 192.168.115.52, 18:31:15, Loopback81
O    10.18.172.0/27 [110/11] via 192.168.37.95, 00:05:09, Serial2/0:0
B    10.104.198.0/25 [20/13] via 192.168.225.243
L    192.168.1.1/32 is directly connected, GigabitEthernet0/0
C    192.168.1.0/24 is directly connected, GigabitEthernet0/0
O    10.120.132.0/16 [110/16] via 192.168.38.243, 12:25:49, Loopback6
O    10.100.219.0/18 [110/17] via 192.168.101.62, 16:48:02, Serial1/1:0
O    192.168.112.0/24 [110/20] via 192.168.18.33, 10:36:01, Loopback70
O    10.177.90.0/27 [110/7] via 192.168.240.100, 07:19:20, Serial3/0:1

Question: Identify all potential issues in this routing table and classify them by severity.

[Assistant]
<reasoning>
1. Observation: BGP route to 10.8.119.0/24 has MED 1191, but the IGP (OSPF) metric to its next-hop 192.168.112.136 is only 20. The MED is 59x to 1191x higher than the actual IGP cost.
2. Analysis: MED should ideally reflect the IGP metric from the advertising router to the BGP next-hop. A large discrepancy indicates: (a) MED is manually set without IGP correlation, (b) IGP metric changed after BGP advertisement, (c) redistribution from another protocol with different metric scale, or (d) route-map setting MED based on a static value rather than dynamic IGP.
3. Context: Inconsistent MED-to-IGP mapping breaks hot-potato routing. Traffic may enter the AS at a suboptimal point because MED doesn't reflect true internal cost. This causes inefficient inter-domain traffic patterns and violates BGP best practices (RFC 4451).
4. Recommendation: Configure 'set metric igp-cost' in BGP route-maps to ensure MED matches IGP metric. If using iBGP with next-hop-self, verify the IGP metric to the advertising router, not the original next-hop. Audit all route-maps for static MED values. Consider using 'bgp bestpath med missing-as-worst' for consistent behavior.
</reasoning>
<answer>
WARNING: BGP MED/IGP metric inconsistency for 10.8.119.0/24. MED 1191 does not match IGP metric 20 to next-hop 192.168.112.136. Check route-map MED configuration and IGP correlation. MED should reflect true internal cost per RFC 4451.
</answer>


[System] You are a network routing expert. Analyze the routing table, detect issues, and provide step-by-step reasoning. Use the format: <reasoning>...step-by-step analysis...</reasoning><answer>...concise answer...</answer>

[User]
Routing table:
O    10.180.225.0/22 [110/16] via 192.168.113.50, 00:09:34, Serial2/1:1
C    192.168.1.0/24 is directly connected, GigabitEthernet0/0
O    10.230.63.0/28 [110/19] via 192.168.171.228, 21:56:55, Serial3/0:1
O    10.23.159.0/16 [110/18] via 192.168.209.18, 11:08:16, Loopback18
O    10.6.186.0/25 [110/11] via 192.168.41.50, 07:55:04, GigabitEthernet3/0
O    10.186.242.0/19 [110/16] via 192.168.73.190, 21:07:42, GigabitEthernet0/0
O    10.164.153.0/23 [110/11] via 192.168.190.14, 06:29:29, FastEthernet0/0
O    10.2.214.0/24 [110/167] via 192.168.4.60, 00:00:19, Port-channel5
O    10.69.217.0/20 [110/7] via 192.168.194.80, 05:37:57, Port-channel5
L    192.168.1.1/32 is directly connected, GigabitEthernet0/0
O    10.245.116.0/29 [110/8] via 192.168.126.143, 05:53:41, Loopback54
O    10.28.69.0/25 [110/7] via 192.168.114.213, 10:13:16, Serial1/1:0
O    10.111.214.0/29 [110/9] via 192.168.75.76, 00:12:03, FastEthernet3/3
O    10.2.214.0/24 [110/10] via 192.168.121.185, 00:00:06, Loopback37
O    10.6.84.0/18 [110/3] via 192.168.86.249, 17:59:05, GigabitEthernet1/3

Question: Does this routing table have any routing inconsistencies?

[Assistant]
<reasoning>
1. Observation: Two OSPF routes to 10.2.214.0/24 exist with different metrics: 10 via 192.168.121.185 (recent) and 167 via 192.168.4.60 (more recent). The metric oscillated by 157 within 30 seconds.
2. Analysis: Metric flapping in OSPF indicates interface cost instability. Possible causes: (a) interface bandwidth auto-negotiation flapping between speeds (e.g., 1Gbps ↔ 100Mbps), (b) reference bandwidth change on an upstream router, (c) LSA refresh from a router with inconsistent cost, or (d) a link with intermittent congestion causing OSPF to recalculate.
3. Context: Metric flapping triggers repeated SPF calculations, consuming CPU. It also causes route churn in the RIB and FIB, leading to packet loss and out-of-order delivery. CEF may alternate between next-hops, causing micro-looping.
4. Recommendation: Check interface speed/duplex on all links toward 10.2.214.0/24 with 'show interface'. Verify 'auto-cost reference-bandwidth' is identical on all routers in the area. Check for LSA Type 1/2 flooding storms. Consider enabling OSPF SPF throttling ('timers throttle spf') to dampen recalculation frequency.
</reasoning>
<answer>
WARNING: OSPF metric flapping for 10.2.214.0/24. Metric oscillated between 10 and 167 within 30 seconds. Check interface speed/duplex negotiation, reference-bandwidth consistency, and LSA flooding. Enable SPF throttling to reduce CPU impact.
</answer>


[System] You are a network routing expert. Analyze the routing table, detect issues, and provide step-by-step reasoning. Use the format: <reasoning>...step-by-step analysis...</reasoning><answer>...concise answer...</answer>

[User]
Routing table:
O    10.45.6.0/24 [110/6] via 192.168.216.193, 13:56:04, GigabitEthernet0/3
O    10.5.72.0/25 [110/15] via 192.168.157.67, 02:26:56, GigabitEthernet1/2
O    10.42.135.0/21 [110/20] via 192.168.218.220, 08:02:35, Serial1/0:1
O    10.45.0.0/24 [110/7] via 192.168.201.122, 06:23:01, Loopback65
C    192.168.1.0/24 is directly connected, GigabitEthernet0/0
O    10.45.1.0/24 [110/5] via 192.168.43.252, 03:29:38, GigabitEthernet1/3
O    10.45.2.0/24 [110/18] via 192.168.177.163, 10:19:57, GigabitEthernet3/1
O    10.45.5.0/24 [110/9] via 192.168.44.89, 03:58:35, FastEthernet3/3
O    10.45.7.0/24 [110/3] via 192.168.226.128, 11:47:06, Loopback60
O    10.45.4.0/24 [110/19] via 192.168.97.224, 19:11:07, Loopback43
O    10.45.3.0/24 [110/4] via 192.168.1.25, 03:41:06, Serial1/1:1
O    10.128.235.0/20 [110/10] via 192.168.211.190, 11:52:33, FastEthernet3/1
L    192.168.1.1/32 is directly connected, GigabitEthernet0/0
O    10.45.53.0/24 [110/2669] via 192.168.92.110, 13:06:22, GigabitEthernet2/1
O    10.158.135.0/20 [110/9] via 192.168.56.224, 22:20:46, GigabitEthernet1/2

Question: Identify all potential issues in this routing table and classify them by severity.

[Assistant]
<reasoning>
1. Observation: OSPF route to 10.45.53.0/24 has metric 2669, while all other OSPF routes in the same area have metrics between 2 and 20. The deviation is 133x to 1334x from the normal range.
2. Analysis: OSPF metric is calculated as the sum of interface costs (reference bandwidth / interface bandwidth). A metric of 2669 suggests either: (a) a very low-bandwidth path (e.g., serial link at 64 kbps), (b) manual cost misconfiguration, (c) reference bandwidth mismatch between routers, or (d) a routing loop causing accumulated cost.
3. Context: This skewed metric makes the path appear much longer than it is. Traffic to 10.45.53.0/24 will be routed suboptimally if an alternate path exists. In a hierarchical design, such metrics can break traffic engineering and cause hot-potato routing issues.
4. Recommendation: Verify interface bandwidth settings on all links toward 10.45.53.0/24. Check 'auto-cost reference-bandwidth' consistency across all OSPF routers. If the path includes a low-speed link, consider upgrading or using a tunnel. Verify no manual 'ip ospf cost' override is applied incorrectly.
</reasoning>
<answer>
WARNING: Severe OSPF metric skew for 10.45.53.0/24. Metric 2669 is 133x–1334x higher than area average (2–20). Check interface bandwidth, reference-bandwidth consistency, and manual cost overrides. Suboptimal routing likely.
</answer>


[System] You are a network routing expert. Analyze the routing table, detect issues, and provide step-by-step reasoning. Use the format: <reasoning>...step-by-step analysis...</reasoning><answer>...concise answer...</answer>

[User]
Routing table:
D    10.41.161.0/24 [90/5113] via 192.168.62.128
D    10.254.143.0/17 [90/396] via 192.168.46.51
D    10.96.151.0/30 [90/148] via 192.168.67.79
D    10.159.51.0/27 [90/442] via 192.168.232.105
C    192.168.1.0/24 is directly connected, GigabitEthernet0/0
D    10.149.147.0/30 [90/426] via 192.168.28.181
D    10.118.226.0/19 [90/234] via 192.168.247.218
D    10.176.139.0/22 [90/358] via 192.168.94.114
D    10.84.175.0/21 [90/777] via 192.168.74.170
L    192.168.1.1/32 is directly connected, GigabitEthernet0/0
D    10.91.188.0/21 [90/291] via 192.168.147.10
D    10.249.146.0/17 [90/112] via 192.168.163.200
D    10.10.1.0/18 [90/407] via 192.168.154.9
D    10.18.47.0/20 [90/410] via 192.168.132.147

Question: What routing issues could cause network instability in this configuration?

[Assistant]
<reasoning>
1. Observation: EIGRP route to 10.41.161.0/24 has metric 5113, which is 527 higher than the expected baseline of 4586. Topology table shows repeated metric increases over the last 5 minutes.
2. Analysis: EIGRP metric increases indicate deteriorating path quality. Possible causes: (a) increasing interface delay due to queue buildup or congestion, (b) bandwidth reduction from auto-negotiation downgrading, (c) a new link with worse characteristics being added to the path, or (d) K-value changes causing recalculation.
3. Context: Unlike OSPF, EIGRP metrics are dynamic and reflect real-time path quality. A steadily increasing metric suggests the path is degrading. If the metric exceeds the feasible distance of the successor, EIGRP will query for a new path, potentially causing SIA if no feasible successor exists.
4. Recommendation: Monitor interface counters on all links toward 10.41.161.0/24 for errors, drops, or queue saturation. Check 'show interface' for bandwidth and delay changes. Verify K-values are consistent across all EIGRP neighbors. If the path includes a WAN link, check SLA metrics and provider circuit health. Consider implementing EIGRP stub to limit query scope.
</reasoning>
<answer>
WARNING: EIGRP metric flapping/increasing for 10.41.161.0/24. Metric rose from 4586 to 5113. Check interface delay/bandwidth, queue congestion, K-values consistency, and WAN link health. SIA risk if no feasible successor.
</answer>


[System] You are a network routing expert. Analyze the routing table, detect issues, and provide step-by-step reasoning. Use the format: <reasoning>...step-by-step analysis...</reasoning><answer>...concise answer...</answer>

[User]
Routing table:
B    10.195.202.0/18 [20/2] via 192.168.241.20
B    10.202.188.0/30 [20/10] via 192.168.35.21
B    10.120.183.0/30 [20/15] via 192.168.30.46
B    10.47.113.0/16 [20/1] via 192.168.9.251
B    10.231.34.0/20 [20/11] via 192.168.197.84
L    192.168.1.1/32 is directly connected, GigabitEthernet0/0
C    192.168.1.0/24 is directly connected, GigabitEthernet0/0
B    10.44.198.0/24 [20/868] via 192.168.201.232
B    10.105.51.0/26 [20/9] via 192.168.148.179
B    10.153.108.0/19 [20/1] via 192.168.172.148
B    10.38.24.0/27 [20/12] via 192.168.184.38
B    10.88.81.0/20 [20/1] via 192.168.105.213
B    10.181.156.0/22 [20/11] via 192.168.10.83
B    10.186.76.0/16 [20/2] via 192.168.152.163
B    10.170.242.0/20 [20/5] via 192.168.149.19

Question: Analyze this routing table for Administrative Distance conflicts.

[Assistant]
<reasoning>
1. Observation: BGP route to 10.44.198.0/24 has MED 868, while all other BGP routes have MED between 0 and 15. The MED deviation is 57x to 868x from the normal range.
2. Analysis: MED (Multi-Exit Discriminator) is used for inter-AS path selection when multiple paths exist from the same neighboring AS. A MED of 868 is atypical—normal MED values reflect IGP cost (usually <1000). This extreme value suggests: (a) IGP metric redistribution without scaling, (b) manual MED policy misconfiguration, (c) AS-path prepending combined with MED, or (d) a BGP community setting MED incorrectly.
3. Context: BGP best-path selection compares MED after weight, local-preference, and AS-path length. An extreme MED makes this path the least preferred among equal AS-path alternatives, effectively black-holing traffic if it's the only path. It also complicates traffic engineering.
4. Recommendation: Verify MED configuration on the advertising router. Check route-maps setting MED based on IGP metric—consider dividing by a factor (e.g., 'set metric igp-cost / 10'). Review BGP communities that manipulate MED. Ensure consistent MED policy across all BGP speakers in the AS.
</reasoning>
<answer>
WARNING: BGP MED skew for 10.44.198.0/24. MED 868 is 57x–868x higher than normal (0–15). Check IGP redistribution scaling, route-map MED policies, and community configurations. Path likely depreferred.
</answer>


[System] You are a network routing expert. Analyze the routing table, detect issues, and provide step-by-step reasoning. Use the format: <reasoning>...step-by-step analysis...</reasoning><answer>...concise answer...</answer>

[User]
Routing table:
C    192.168.1.0/24 is directly connected, GigabitEthernet0/0
L    192.168.1.1/32 is directly connected, GigabitEthernet0/0
O    10.31.4.0/24 [110/12] via 192.168.39.186, 14:09:56, GigabitEthernet2/2
O    10.31.2.0/24 [110/5] via 192.168.56.74, 21:31:43, Loopback1
O    10.157.245.0/28 [110/8] via 192.168.205.111, 04:41:56, Serial2/0:0
O    10.114.66.0/29 [110/18] via 192.168.25.247, 04:30:56, GigabitEthernet3/3
O    10.31.0.0/24 [110/9] via 192.168.52.227, 18:35:53, Port-channel7
O    10.31.1.0/24 [110/20] via 192.168.251.193, 00:39:05, Loopback30
O    10.31.3.0/24 [110/14] via 192.168.160.54, 23:32:40, Serial2/1:1
O    10.117.62.0/26 [110/17] via 192.168.233.173, 17:25:42, Port-channel5
O    10.31.6.0/24 [110/5] via 192.168.255.223, 19:56:31, Loopback64
O    10.31.5.0/24 [110/13] via 192.168.158.7, 12:57:37, Serial3/1:0
O    10.31.75.0/24 [110/4755] via 192.168.132.217, 15:32:33, Loopback72

Question: Identify all potential issues in this routing table and classify them by severity.

[Assistant]
<reasoning>
1. Observation: OSPF route to 10.31.75.0/24 has metric 4755, while all other OSPF routes in the same area have metrics between 2 and 20. The deviation is 237x to 2377x from the normal range.
2. Analysis: OSPF metric is calculated as the sum of interface costs (reference bandwidth / interface bandwidth). A metric of 4755 suggests either: (a) a very low-bandwidth path (e.g., serial link at 64 kbps), (b) manual cost misconfiguration, (c) reference bandwidth mismatch between routers, or (d) a routing loop causing accumulated cost.
3. Context: This skewed metric makes the path appear much longer than it is. Traffic to 10.31.75.0/24 will be routed suboptimally if an alternate path exists. In a hierarchical design, such metrics can break traffic engineering and cause hot-potato routing issues.
4. Recommendation: Verify interface bandwidth settings on all links toward 10.31.75.0/24. Check 'auto-cost reference-bandwidth' consistency across all OSPF routers. If the path includes a low-speed link, consider upgrading or using a tunnel. Verify no manual 'ip ospf cost' override is applied incorrectly.
</reasoning>
<answer>
WARNING: Severe OSPF metric skew for 10.31.75.0/24. Metric 4755 is 237x–2377x higher than area average (2–20). Check interface bandwidth, reference-bandwidth consistency, and manual cost overrides. Suboptimal routing likely.
</answer>


[System] You are a network routing expert. Analyze the routing table, detect issues, and provide step-by-step reasoning. Use the format: <reasoning>...step-by-step analysis...</reasoning><answer>...concise answer...</answer>

[User]
Routing table:
D    10.154.29.0/23 [90/777] via 192.168.89.12
L    192.168.1.1/32 is directly connected, GigabitEthernet0/0
D    10.205.20.0/20 [90/214] via 192.168.239.23
D    10.174.10.0/20 [90/332] via 192.168.201.94
D    10.127.220.0/18 [90/694] via 192.168.92.9
D    10.215.199.0/26 [90/447] via 192.168.2.123
C    192.168.1.0/24 is directly connected, GigabitEthernet0/0
D    10.199.195.0/21 [90/844] via 192.168.40.105
D    10.116.200.0/27 [90/285] via 192.168.26.170
D    10.5.211.0/16 [90/235] via 192.168.172.110
D    10.156.22.0/30 [90/191] via 192.168.124.118
D    10.112.116.0/19 [90/444] via 192.168.238.238
D    10.85.199.0/24 [90/155] via 192.168.247.119
D    10.5.205.0/20 [90/304] via 192.168.130.74
D    10.2.160.0/24 [90/5499117] via 192.168.125.210

Question: Does this routing table have any routing inconsistencies?

[Assistant]
<reasoning>
1. Observation: EIGRP route to 10.2.160.0/24 has composite metric 5499117, while other EIGRP routes have metrics between 100 and 1000. The deviation is 5499x to 54991x from normal.
2. Analysis: EIGRP composite metric = (K1 * bandwidth + K2 * bandwidth/(256-load) + K3 * delay) * K5/(reliability + K4). A metric of 5499117 indicates either: (a) a very low-bandwidth link (e.g., T1 at 1544 kbps with high delay), (b) a satellite or MPLS link with high delay, (c) interface bandwidth misconfigured to 1 kbps, or (d) K-values mismatch between neighbors causing metric calculation divergence.
3. Context: EIGRP uses the composite metric for best-path and feasible successor selection. An abnormally high metric may prevent the route from being used even when it's the only path, or cause feasible successor rejection. The route may also indicate a SIA condition if the metric keeps increasing.
4. Recommendation: Verify 'bandwidth' and 'delay' interface parameters on all links toward 10.2.160.0/24. Check K-value consistency with 'show ip eigrp neighbors' and 'show ip protocols'. If the path includes a satellite/WAN link, consider adjusting delay to reflect actual latency. Verify no interface bandwidth is set to 1 kbps accidentally.
</reasoning>
<answer>
WARNING: Severe EIGRP metric skew for 10.2.160.0/24. Composite metric 5499117 is 5499x–54991x higher than normal (100–1000). Check interface bandwidth/delay, K-values consistency, and SIA conditions.
</answer>