Huawei Updated H12-831_V1.0 Exam Questions and Answers by magnus

Comprehensive and Detailed In-Depth Explanation:

Understanding the IS-IS Network and IPv6 Route Summary Behavior

IS-IS Areas and Router Roles:

Area 49.0001 (Level-1-2): R1, R2, R4

Area 49.0002 (Level-1-2 & Level-1): R3 (Level-1-2), R5 (Level-1 only)

Effect of ipv6 summary 2000::/64 level-2 Command

This command on R1 and R2 summarizes the 2000::/64 prefix for Level-2 routers.

Instead of advertising the detailed 2000::4/128 prefix, R1 and R2 advertise only the summarized 2000::/64 route to other Level-2 routers.

Effect of ipv6 import-route isis level-2 into level-1 Command

This command allows Level-1 routers (like R3) to learn Level-2 routes (like 2000::/64).

R1 and R2 redistribute the 2000::/64 summary route into Level-1 IS-IS areas, making it available to Level-1 routers.

Route Distribution Analysis for Each Router

R4 (Does Not Have 2000::/64) ❌

R4 only advertises its Loopback0 (2000::4/128).

It does not need to install the summarized 2000::/64 route, as it originates from its own loopback.

✅ R4 does NOT have the 2000::/64 route.

R5 (Does Not Have 2000::/64) ❌

R5 is a Level-1-only router in Area 49.0002.

It does not have a Level-2 connection to learn the summarized 2000::/64 route.

Because R5 is Level-1 only, it can only receive routes if a default route is provided, which is not mentioned in the question.

✅ R5 does NOT have the 2000::/64 route.

R3 (Has 2000::/64) ✅

R3 is a Level-1-2 router, meaning it can learn both Level-1 and Level-2 routes.

Since R1 and R2 advertise the summarized 2000::/64 route into Level-2 and R3 has ipv6 import-route isis level-2 into level-1, R3 will install 2000::/64 in its routing table.

✅ R3 has the 2000::/64 route.

R2 (Has 2000::/64) ✅

R2 is a Level-1-2 router and has the ipv6 summary 2000::/64 level-2 command enabled.

This means R2 advertises the summarized 2000::/64 route to other Level-2 routers and installs it in its own routing table.

✅ R2 has the 2000::/64 route.

Final Conclusion:

✅ R3 has the route 2000::/64.✅ R2 has the route 2000::/64.❌ R4 does NOT have the route 2000::/64.❌ R5 does NOT have the route 2000::/64.

Thus, the correct answers are: C. R3, D. R2.

Comprehensive and Detailed In-Depth Explanation:

1. Understanding the MPLS Data Flow in the Figure

PC1 (1.1.1.1) sends a ping to PC2 (3.3.3.3).

The MPLS domain includes R1, R2, and R3.

R1 pushes an MPLS label onto the packet (Label: 300).

Packets from PC1 to PC2 are label-switched (MPLS forwarding).

Packets from PC2 to PC1 do not carry an MPLS label (IP forwarding).

2. Evaluating Each Answer Option

Option A: "If the device is R3, R3 forwards the packet from PC1 to PC2 over an IP route."

Incorrect.

The packet carries an MPLS label (Label 300) when entering the MPLS domain.

This means that R3 forwards the packet using MPLS, not a standard IP route.

If R3 were using an IP route, there would be no MPLS label in the packet.

Option B: "Packets from PC1 to PC2 are forwarded based on MPLS labels in the MPLS domain."

Correct.

The packet capture shows an MPLS label (Label 300), proving that PC1’s traffic is being forwarded using MPLS switching inside the MPLS domain.

This confirms that MPLS is being used for forwarding in one direction (PC1 → PC2).

Option C: "Packets from PC2 to PC1 are forwarded based on the IP packet header in the MPLS domain."

Correct in concept but incorrect in context.

The packet capture shows that the return traffic (PC2 → PC1) does not have an MPLS label.

However, the phrase "in the MPLS domain" makes this statement misleading, as R3 is forwarding based on pure IP routing, not MPLS forwarding.

Option D: "PC1 pings PC2."

Correct.

The packet capture clearly shows ICMP Echo Request (ping) from PC1 (1.1.1.1) to PC2 (3.3.3.3) and an ICMP Echo Reply from PC2.

This confirms that PC1 is pinging PC2 successfully.

Final Answer:

✅ B and D are correct.

HCIP-Datacom-Advanced Routing & Switching Technology References:

MPLS Label Forwarding and Static LSPs

MPLS vs. IP Routing in Different Traffic Flows

Packet Header Analysis in MPLS Networks