Which statement is true regarding an EIGRP feasible successor?

Which statement is true regarding an EIGRP feasible successor?

• A. It has the lowest advertised distance
• B. It has an advertised distance that is less than the feasible distance of the successor
• C. It has the lowest feasible distance
• D. It has an advertised distance that is greater than the feasible distance of the successor

Answer: (B)

In EIGRP, a feasible successor is a backup next-hop path you can switch to if the current (successor) path fails, and it must satisfy a specific safety test: the distance advertised by the neighbor for the destination must be less than the distance you currently have to the destination via the best path (your feasible distance). This ensures the backup path won’t create a routing loop. So the statement that describes a feasible successor is that its advertised distance is less than the feasible distance of the current successor. If the neighbor’s AD is smaller, that path is considered feasible and can take over if needed. If the AD isn’t smaller, the path isn’t deemed feasible and isn’t used as a backup. The other ideas—having the lowest advertised distance, or the lowest feasible distance, or an advertised distance greater than the current FD—don’t define a feasible successor. It’s specifically AD < FD that makes a backup path safe and usable.

In EIGRP, a feasible successor is a backup next-hop path you can switch to if the current (successor) path fails, and it must satisfy a specific safety test: the distance advertised by the neighbor for the destination must be less than the distance you currently have to the destination via the best path (your feasible distance). This ensures the backup path won’t create a routing loop.

So the statement that describes a feasible successor is that its advertised distance is less than the feasible distance of the current successor. If the neighbor’s AD is smaller, that path is considered feasible and can take over if needed. If the AD isn’t smaller, the path isn’t deemed feasible and isn’t used as a backup.

The other ideas—having the lowest advertised distance, or the lowest feasible distance, or an advertised distance greater than the current FD—don’t define a feasible successor. It’s specifically AD < FD that makes a backup path safe and usable.