[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 10.1.1.0/24 [110/2] via 10.0.0.1, 00:12:05, GigabitEthernet0/0
O 10.1.1.0/24 [110/1500] via 10.0.0.2, 00:12:05, GigabitEthernet0/1

Question: Identify any metric anomalies in this routing table.

[Assistant]
<reasoning>
1. Observation: Network 10.1.1.0/24 is learned via OSPF through two paths with metrics 2 and 1500.
2. Analysis: A metric skew of 2 vs 1500 in OSPF indicates a severe cost mismatch, likely due to a misconfigured 'ip ospf cost' or 'bandwidth' statement on the interface leading to 10.0.0.2.
3. Context: Traffic will exclusively use the path via 10.0.0.1, defeating the purpose of ECMP and potentially causing congestion on that single link.
4. Recommendation: Verify and correct the interface bandwidth or OSPF cost on GigabitEthernet0/1 to match the intended topology.
</reasoning>
<answer>
WARNING: METRIC_SKEW detected. OSPF metrics for 10.1.1.0/24 are highly unbalanced (2 vs 1500). Check interface configuration on GigabitEthernet0/1.
</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 192.168.5.0/24 [90/30720] via 10.0.0.1
D 192.168.5.0/24 [90/409600000] via 10.0.0.2

Question: Does this routing table have any routing inconsistencies?

[Assistant]
<reasoning>
1. Observation: EIGRP routes to 192.168.5.0/24 have metrics 30720 and 409600000.
2. Analysis: The second metric is disproportionately large, suggesting a path with extremely low bandwidth or extremely high delay configured on the link to 10.0.0.2.
3. Context: EIGRP will never use the second path for load balancing, making it a dormant backup route with potentially misleading topology information.
4. Recommendation: Inspect the bandwidth and delay parameters on the interface towards 10.0.0.2.
</reasoning>
<answer>
WARNING: METRIC_SKEW detected. EIGRP composite metrics for 192.168.5.0/24 show a massive disparity. Review link properties towards 10.0.0.2.
</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 172.16.0.0/16 [110/3] via 192.168.1.1, 00:05:10, Gi0/0
O 172.16.0.0/16 [110/200] via 192.168.1.2, 00:05:10, Gi0/1
O 172.16.0.0/16 [110/4] via 192.168.1.3, 00:05:10, Gi0/2

Question: Identify any metric anomalies in this routing table.

[Assistant]
<reasoning>
1. Observation: Three OSPF paths to 172.16.0.0/16 have metrics 3, 200, and 4.
2. Analysis: The path via 192.168.1.2 has a metric of 200, which is an extreme outlier compared to 3 and 4.
3. Context: This prevents equal-cost multi-path (ECMP) routing across all three links and indicates a configuration error on the specific path.
4. Recommendation: Check the OSPF reference bandwidth or interface cost on the link to 192.168.1.2.
</reasoning>
<answer>
WARNING: METRIC_SKEW detected. The OSPF cost of 200 via 192.168.1.2 breaks ECMP with the other paths (costs 3 and 4). Correct the interface OSPF cost.
</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:
R 10.10.10.0/24 [120/1] via 192.168.10.1
R 10.10.10.0/24 [120/15] via 192.168.10.2

Question: Analyze this routing table for metric anomalies.

[Assistant]
<reasoning>
1. Observation: Two RIP routes to 10.10.10.0/24 have hop counts of 1 and 15.
2. Analysis: A hop count of 15 in RIP is the maximum before being marked as unreachable (16). The disparity suggests 192.168.10.2 is at the edge of the network diameter.
3. Context: The route via 192.168.10.2 is highly unstable and prone to dropping entirely, making it a poor backup path.
4. Recommendation: Review the network diameter and consider increasing RIP maximum hops or optimizing the routing design.
</reasoning>
<answer>
WARNING: METRIC_SKEW detected. RIP hop count of 15 via 192.168.10.2 indicates an excessively long path compared to the 1-hop alternative. Network redesign recommended.
</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 203.0.113.0/24 [20/100] via 10.1.1.1
B 203.0.113.0/24 [20/5000] via 10.1.1.2

Question: Identify any metric anomalies in this routing table.

[Assistant]
<reasoning>
1. Observation: BGP routes to 203.0.113.0/24 have Local Preferences (or weights/metrics depending on config) resulting in MEDs or weights of 100 and 5000.
2. Analysis: A massive metric difference in BGP usually implies one path is highly penalized or traverses a much longer AS path, though here the AD is the same.
3. Context: Traffic will strictly follow the 100-metric path. The 5000-metric path acts only as a hard backup.
4. Recommendation: Verify if the 5000 metric is intentional (e.g., backup link penalty) or a misconfigured route-map.
</reasoning>
<answer>
INFO: METRIC_SKEW detected. BGP metrics differ significantly (100 vs 5000). Verify if this intentional penalization for the path via 10.1.1.2 is correct.
</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 10.50.0.0/16 [90/256000] via 172.16.0.1
D 10.50.0.0/16 [90/25600] via 172.16.0.2

Question: Does this routing table contain a routing loop or metric anomaly?

[Assistant]
<reasoning>
1. Observation: EIGRP paths to 10.50.0.0/16 have metrics 256000 and 25600.
2. Analysis: The path via 172.16.0.1 has a metric exactly 10 times higher than the path via 172.16.0.2, typical of a bandwidth mismatch (e.g., 100Mbps vs 1Gbps).
3. Context: No loop is present, but the skewed metrics prevent load balancing.
4. Recommendation: Ensure both links have the correct 'bandwidth' interface command configured to reflect actual link speeds.
</reasoning>
<answer>
WARNING: METRIC_SKEW detected. EIGRP metric via 172.16.0.1 is 10x higher, likely due to a bandwidth configuration error preventing load balancing.
</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 192.168.100.0/24 [110/10] via 10.0.0.1, 00:02:11, Gi0/0
O 192.168.100.0/24 [110/10000] via 10.0.0.2, 00:02:11, Gi0/1

Question: Identify any metric anomalies in this routing table.

[Assistant]
<reasoning>
1. Observation: OSPF metrics to 192.168.100.0/24 are 10 and 10000.
2. Analysis: A metric of 10000 in standard OSPF (reference bandwidth 100Mbps) implies a 10Kbps link, which is extremely rare in modern networks.
3. Context: This is almost certainly a manual 'ip ospf cost 10000' mistake or a missing bandwidth statement on a serial interface.
4. Recommendation: Correct the OSPF cost on the interface connected to 10.0.0.2.
</reasoning>
<answer>
WARNING: METRIC_SKEW detected. The OSPF metric of 10000 via 10.0.0.2 is highly anomalous and likely a misconfiguration. Verify interface costs.
</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 172.16.5.0/24 [90/409600] via 10.10.10.1
D 172.16.5.0/24 [90/2300416] via 10.10.10.2

Question: Analyze this routing table for metric anomalies.

[Assistant]
<reasoning>
1. Observation: EIGRP metrics for 172.16.5.0/24 are 409600 and 2300416.
2. Analysis: The second metric is heavily influenced by delay, as the composite number contains standard EIGRP delay denominator artifacts.
3. Context: The path via 10.10.10.2 has artificially high delay configured, skewing the metric.
4. Recommendation: Check 'delay' interface configuration on the link towards 10.10.10.2.
</reasoning>
<answer>
WARNING: METRIC_SKEW detected. EIGRP metric disparity points to an abnormally high delay value on the path via 10.10.10.2. Review interface delay settings.
</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 10.5.5.0/24 [110/2] via 192.168.5.1
O 10.5.5.0/24 [110/50] via 192.168.5.2
O 10.5.5.0/24 [110/2] via 192.168.5.3

Question: Identify any metric anomalies in this routing table.

[Assistant]
<reasoning>
1. Observation: Three OSPF paths exist with metrics 2, 50, and 2.
2. Analysis: Two paths have a cost of 2, but the middle path has a cost of 50. This breaks ECMP which requires all paths to have the exact same metric.
3. Context: The network could benefit from 3-way load balancing but is currently restricted to 2-way due to the middle link's anomaly.
4. Recommendation: Align the OSPF cost on the interface leading to 192.168.5.2 to match the others (cost 2).
</reasoning>
<answer>
WARNING: METRIC_SKEW detected. The path via 192.168.5.2 (metric 50) breaks ECMP with the other two paths (metric 2). Adjust OSPF cost.
</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:
R 192.168.200.0/24 [120/3] via 10.0.0.5
R 192.168.200.0/24 [120/14] via 10.0.0.6

Question: Does this routing table have any routing inconsistencies?

[Assistant]
<reasoning>
1. Observation: RIP metrics are 3 and 14.
2. Analysis: While 14 is valid, being so close to the maximum hop count (15) in a network with an alternative 3-hop path indicates a highly suboptimal routing design or a routing loop nearby.
3. Context: The 14-hop path is on the verge of being unreachable and should not realistically be used.
4. Recommendation: Investigate why traffic is routing through so many hops to reach 10.0.0.6 and filter if unnecessary.
</reasoning>
<answer>
WARNING: METRIC_SKEW detected. The 14-hop RIP path is highly suboptimal and unstable compared to the 3-hop path. Review network topology towards 10.0.0.6.
</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 10.99.0.0/16 [110/1] via 10.0.0.1
O 10.99.0.0/16 [110/65535] via 10.0.0.2

Question: Identify any metric anomalies in this routing table.

[Assistant]
<reasoning>
1. Observation: OSPF metrics are 1 and 65535.
2. Analysis: 65535 is the maximum 16-bit integer value. In OSPF, this represents an infinite cost (unreachable) or a severely misconfigured static cost.
3. Context: The path via 10.0.0.2 should likely not be in the routing table as a valid path, yet it appears here.
4. Recommendation: Immediately check the interface configuration for 'ip ospf cost 65535' towards 10.0.0.2 and remove it.
</reasoning>
<answer>
CRITICAL: METRIC_SKEW detected. OSPF metric 65535 via 10.0.0.2 indicates a maximum-cost misconfiguration, rendering the path invalid for traffic.
</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 198.51.100.0/24 [20/0] via 192.168.1.1
B 198.51.100.0/24 [20/32768] via 192.168.1.2

Question: Analyze this routing table for metric anomalies.

[Assistant]
<reasoning>
1. Observation: BGP weights/metrics are 0 and 32768.
2. Analysis: A metric of 32768 is exactly half of the maximum 16-bit value, often a default penalty or an artificially set high value.
3. Context: This completely skews BGP path selection away from the second link.
4. Recommendation: Review route-maps applied to the neighbor 192.168.1.2 to ensure the metric is set according to policy.
</reasoning>
<answer>
INFO: METRIC_SKEW detected. BGP metric 32768 heavily penalizes the path via 192.168.1.2. Verify if this route-map action is intentional.
</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 10.10.0.0/16 [90/2172416] via 10.1.1.1
D 10.10.0.0/16 [90/21724160] via 10.1.1.2

Question: Identify any metric anomalies in this routing table.

[Assistant]
<reasoning>
1. Observation: EIGRP metrics differ by exactly a factor of 10 (2172416 vs 21724160).
2. Analysis: This precise decimal factor strongly indicates a bandwidth misconfiguration where one link is set to 10% of its actual capacity.
3. Context: The skewed metric prevents load balancing across equally capable links.
4. Recommendation: Correct the 'bandwidth' statement on the interface towards 10.1.1.2.
</reasoning>
<answer>
WARNING: METRIC_SKEW detected. EIGRP metric via 10.1.1.2 is exactly 10x higher, a classic symptom of a bandwidth parameter error.
</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 172.16.10.0/24 [110/5] via 10.0.0.1
O 172.16.10.0/24 [110/500] via 10.0.0.2

Question: Does this routing table contain a routing loop or metric anomaly?

[Assistant]
<reasoning>
1. Observation: OSPF metrics are 5 and 500.
2. Analysis: A 100x difference in metric suggests a fundamental mismatch in perceived link capacities.
3. Context: No loop, but ECMP is broken. The 500-cost path will only be used if the primary fails.
4. Recommendation: Harmonize the OSPF costs if both paths are intended for load sharing.
</reasoning>
<answer>
WARNING: METRIC_SKEW detected. 100x metric difference (5 vs 500) breaks ECMP. Check interface costs for 10.0.0.2.
</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:
R 10.0.5.0/24 [120/1] via 192.168.5.1
R 10.0.5.0/24 [120/8] via 192.168.5.2
R 10.0.5.0/24 [120/12] via 192.168.5.3

Question: Analyze this routing table for metric anomalies.

[Assistant]
<reasoning>
1. Observation: RIP hop counts are 1, 8, and 12.
2. Analysis: While there is no strict 'error' here, the variance from 1 to 12 shows highly inconsistent path efficiencies within the same routed protocol.
3. Context: If these are parallel links, the metrics are drastically skewed. If not, the 12-hop path is a poor backup.
4. Recommendation: Review the physical topology to ensure these paths align with the expected network design.
</reasoning>
<answer>
INFO: METRIC_SKEW detected. High variance in RIP hop counts (1 to 12) suggests suboptimal path diversity or misconfigured hop counts.
</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 192.168.50.0/24 [110/20] via 10.1.1.1
O 192.168.50.0/24 [110/2000] via 10.1.1.2

Question: Identify any metric anomalies in this routing table.

[Assistant]
<reasoning>
1. Observation: OSPF metrics 20 and 2000.
2. Analysis: The second metric is exactly 100 times the first, typical when a 1Gbps link is compared to a 10Mbps link under auto-cost.
3. Context: If both are physical 1Gbps links, the 2000 metric is an error. If one is a backup WAN link, it might be correct.
4. Recommendation: Verify the physical speed of the link to 10.1.1.2 and adjust OSPF auto-cost reference bandwidth or manual costs.
</reasoning>
<answer>
WARNING: METRIC_SKEW detected. 100x cost difference (20 vs 2000). Confirm if the link to 10.1.1.2 is intentionally a lower-speed backup.
</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 10.20.20.0/24 [90/552320] via 10.0.0.1
D 10.20.20.0/24 [90/5523200] via 10.0.0.2

Question: Does this routing table have any routing inconsistencies?

[Assistant]
<reasoning>
1. Observation: EIGRP metrics are 552320 and 5523200 (10x difference).
2. Analysis: The trailing zero in the larger metric points directly to a bandwidth calculation error.
3. Context: This prevents equal-cost load balancing across what might be identical links.
4. Recommendation: Correct the 'bandwidth' command on the interface connected to next-hop 10.0.0.2.
</reasoning>
<answer>
WARNING: METRIC_SKEW detected. A 10x metric difference caused by a bandwidth parameter error on the path via 10.0.0.2.
</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 10.100.100.0/24 [110/4] via 192.168.1.1
O 10.100.100.0/24 [110/400] via 192.168.1.2

Question: Identify any metric anomalies in this routing table.

[Assistant]
<reasoning>
1. Observation: OSPF metrics differ by 100x (4 vs 400).
2. Analysis: Such a stark difference in a standard LAN environment usually means an interface cost was manually set incorrectly.
3. Context: The path via 192.168.1.2 is effectively ignored for load balancing.
4. Recommendation: Remove manual OSPF cost overrides or set them to equal values on the path via 192.168.1.2.
</reasoning>
<answer>
WARNING: METRIC_SKEW detected. The 400 metric is a massive outlier compared to 4, indicating a manual cost misconfiguration.
</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 203.0.113.0/28 [20/100] via 10.0.0.1
B 203.0.113.0/28 [20/10000] via 10.0.0.2

Question: Analyze this routing table for metric anomalies.

[Assistant]
<reasoning>
1. Observation: BGP metrics are 100 and 10000.
2. Analysis: A 100x difference in BGP metric (MED/Weight) represents a hard policy preference.
3. Context: While technically valid, if this is meant to be an active-active setup, the skew is a configuration error.
4. Recommendation: Validate the route-maps applied inbound from 10.0.0.2 to ensure the high metric is intentional.
</reasoning>
<answer>
INFO: METRIC_SKEW detected. BGP metric 10000 vs 100 indicates a heavy routing policy skew. Confirm policy intent.
</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 172.16.0.0/24 [110/11] via 10.1.1.1
O 172.16.0.0/24 [110/1111] via 10.1.1.2

Question: Identify any metric anomalies in this routing table.

[Assistant]
<reasoning>
1. Observation: Metrics are 11 and 1111.
2. Analysis: The pattern of repeating '1's suggests a manually typed OSPF cost rather than an auto-calculated one.
3. Context: This breaks ECMP and makes the path via 10.1.1.2 highly unfavorable.
4. Recommendation: Change the manual OSPF cost on the interface to 10.1.1.2 to match the intended design.
</reasoning>
<answer>
WARNING: METRIC_SKEW detected. The metric 1111 appears to be a manual typo or misconfiguration breaking ECMP.
</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 10.0.0.0/8 [110/2] via 192.168.1.1, 00:00:01, Gi0/0
O 10.0.0.0/8 [110/2] via 192.168.1.2, 00:00:15, Gi0/1

Question: Identify any metric anomalies in this routing table.

[Assistant]
<reasoning>
1. Observation: Metrics are equal (2), but the route timers are 00:00:01 and 00:00:15.
2. Analysis: The path via 192.168.1.1 was updated 14 seconds after the other, suggesting it was briefly withdrawn and re-advertised.
3. Context: This timer discrepancy is a strong indicator of METRIC_FLAPPING or link instability on Gi0/0.
4. Recommendation: Check for interface errors, duplex mismatches, or OSPF adjacency drops on GigabitEthernet0/0.
</reasoning>
<answer>
WARNING: METRIC_FLAPPING suspected. The route via 192.168.1.1 has a very low timer (00:00:01), indicating recent route churn on Gi0/0.
</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 192.168.10.0/24 [90/30720] via 10.0.0.1
D 192.168.10.0/24 [90/28160] via 10.0.0.2

Question: Does this routing table have any routing inconsistencies?

[Assistant]
<reasoning>
1. Observation: EIGRP metrics are 30720 and 28160 for the same network.
2. Analysis: The metrics differ by 2560, preventing ECMP (which requires exact metric match in EIGRP). The continuous presence of both suggests they are swapping as 'best path'.
3. Context: If metrics change frequently (not visible in static output but implied by close values), it causes route flapping.
4. Recommendation: Investigate if these metrics are stable or if variance is configured but metrics are oscillating.
</reasoning>
<answer>
WARNING: METRIC_FLAPPING risk detected. EIGRP metrics are close but unequal (30720 vs 28160), risking constant best-path recalculation if link states vary.
</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 172.16.5.0/24 [110/5] via 10.1.1.1, 00:00:02, Gi0/0
O 172.16.5.0/24 [110/5] via 10.1.1.2, 00:05:10, Gi0/1

Question: Identify any metric anomalies in this routing table.

[Assistant]
<reasoning>
1. Observation: Equal metrics (5), but one path has a timer of 00:00:02.
2. Analysis: A 2-second timer on an OSPF route means the LSA was just re-flooded, pointing to flapping.
3. Context: Flapping routes cause excessive SPF calculations, impacting CPU.
4. Recommendation: Monitor OSPF logs for LSA retransmissions on the link to 10.1.1.1.
</reasoning>
<answer>
WARNING: METRIC_FLAPPING detected. Route via 10.1.1.1 was refreshed 2 seconds ago, indicating severe instability on that segment.
</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 10.0.0.0/8 [20/0] via 192.168.1.1, 00:00:03
B 10.0.0.0/8 [20/0] via 192.168.1.2, 00:10:00

Question: Analyze this routing table for metric anomalies.

[Assistant]
<reasoning>
1. Observation: BGP routes have equal metrics but a 10-minute difference in timers.
2. Analysis: The path via 192.168.1.1 was updated 3 seconds ago, suggesting a BGP session reset or route withdrawal.
3. Context: BGP flapping can cause route instabilities across the AS.
4. Recommendation: Check BGP neighbor logs for 192.168.1.1 to identify the cause of the recent update.
</reasoning>
<answer>
WARNING: METRIC_FLAPPING detected. The BGP route via 192.168.1.1 has a 3-second age, indicating a recent notification or session flap.
</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 192.168.1.0/24 [110/2] via 10.0.0.1, 00:00:01, Gi0/0
O 192.168.1.0/24 [110/3] via 10.0.0.2, 00:00:01, Gi0/1

Question: Identify any metric anomalies in this routing table.

[Assistant]
<reasoning>
1. Observation: Both routes have an age of 00:00:01, and their metrics (2 and 3) are close but not equal.
2. Analysis: Simultaneous 1-second ages for different metric values imply an SPF calculation just occurred where metrics changed rapidly.
3. Context: This is a signature of METRIC_FLAPPING where link costs are oscillating.
4. Recommendation: Investigate interface utilization or auto-cost changes on GigabitEthernet0/0 and Gi0/1.
</reasoning>
<answer>
CRITICAL: METRIC_FLAPPING detected. Both paths show 1-second ages with differing metrics, indicating active OSPF cost oscillation.
</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 10.5.0.0/16 [90/156160] via 172.16.0.1, 00:00:02
D 10.5.0.0/16 [90/156160] via 172.16.0.2, 00:15:00

Question: Does this routing table have any routing inconsistencies?

[Assistant]
<reasoning>
1. Observation: Equal EIGRP metrics, but one route is 2 seconds old.
2. Analysis: A fresh EIGRP route indicates a recomputation event just happened for the path via 172.16.0.1.
3. Context: This could be caused by a flapping interface or a neighboring router resetting the EIGRP peer.
4. Recommendation: Verify EIGRP neighbor stability for 172.16.0.1.
</reasoning>
<answer>
WARNING: METRIC_FLAPPING suspected. The 2-second age on the path via 172.16.0.1 suggests a recent EIGRP topology change.
</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 10.10.10.0/24 [110/10] via 192.168.10.1, 00:00:04
O 10.10.10.0/24 [110/10] via 192.168.10.2, 00:02:00

Question: Identify any metric anomalies in this routing table.

[Assistant]
<reasoning>
1. Observation: OSPF ECMP paths, but one has an age of 4 seconds.
2. Analysis: The short age indicates the LSA for this path was just re-received.
3. Context: If this pattern repeats, it constitutes route flapping, causing CPU load.
4. Recommendation: Check for physical layer issues on the link to 192.168.10.1.
</reasoning>
<answer>
WARNING: METRIC_FLAPPING detected. The path via 192.168.10.1 shows a 4-second age, pointing to recent LSA churn.
</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:
R 192.168.5.0/24 [120/2] via 10.0.0.1, 00:00:05
R 192.168.5.0/24 [120/2] via 10.0.0.2, 00:00:05

Question: Analyze this routing table for metric anomalies.

[Assistant]
<reasoning>
1. Observation: Both RIP routes have an age of exactly 5 seconds.
2. Analysis: Standard RIP updates every 30 seconds. A 5-second age on both means an unsolicited update was just received, or routes were just flushed and re-learned.
3. Context: This simultaneous refresh is a strong indicator of network-wide metric or route flapping.
4. Recommendation: Check upstream RIP neighbors for instability or misconfigured timers.
</reasoning>
<answer>
WARNING: METRIC_FLAPPING detected. Both routes have a 5-second age, suggesting a recent network-wide RIP update storm or route flap.
</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 198.51.100.0/24 [20/100] via 10.1.1.1, 00:00:01
B 198.51.100.0/24 [20/100] via 10.1.1.2, 00:05:00

Question: Does this routing table have any routing inconsistencies?

[Assistant]
<reasoning>
1. Observation: BGP paths have identical metrics, but one is 1 second old.
2. Analysis: BGP routes are typically stable for long periods. A 1-second age indicates a hard reset or flap on the BGP session to 10.1.1.1.
3. Context: BGP flapping can lead to route dampening.
4. Recommendation: Investigate TCP connectivity and BGP peer logs for 10.1.1.1.
</reasoning>
<answer>
WARNING: METRIC_FLAPPING detected. BGP session to 10.1.1.1 appears to have just recovered, indicating recent instability.
</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 10.99.99.0/24 [110/20] via 192.168.1.1, 00:00:02, Gi0/0
O 10.99.99.0/24 [110/20] via 192.168.1.2, 00:00:02, Gi0/1

Question: Identify any metric anomalies in this routing table.

[Assistant]
<reasoning>
1. Observation: Both OSPF paths have a 2-second age.
2. Analysis: Simultaneous 2-second ages on parallel links suggest a shared failure upstream or an SPF trigger that affected both LSAs simultaneously.
3. Context: This is an anomaly that points to METRIC_FLAPPING on a shared segment or router.
4. Recommendation: Trace the paths to find the common point of failure causing the simultaneous refresh.
</reasoning>
<answer>
WARNING: METRIC_FLAPPING detected. Simultaneous 2-second ages on both paths indicate a shared upstream topology change or flap.
</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 172.16.0.0/16 [90/409600] via 10.0.0.1, 00:00:03
D 172.16.0.0/16 [90/409600] via 10.0.0.2, 00:12:00

Question: Analyze this routing table for metric anomalies.

[Assistant]
<reasoning>
1. Observation: EIGRP paths with equal metrics but a 3-second age on the first.
2. Analysis: The route via 10.0.0.1 was just installed into the routing table.
3. Context: If this happens repeatedly, it's flapping.
4. Recommendation: Check EIGRP logs for 'DUAL-3-SIA' or neighbor loss on 10.0.0.1.
</reasoning>
<answer>
WARNING: METRIC_FLAPPING suspected. The 3-second age on the path via 10.0.0.1 indicates a recent EIGRP route recomputation.
</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 10.1.1.0/24 [110/5] via 10.0.0.1, 00:00:01
O 10.1.1.0/24 [110/5] via 10.0.0.2, 00:00:01

Question: Identify any metric anomalies in this routing table.

[Assistant]
<reasoning>
1. Observation: Both routes are exactly 1 second old.
2. Analysis: This indicates the routing table was just cleared, or a massive LSA flood caused both routes to be re-installed simultaneously.
3. Context: While it could be an admin action, if persistent, it's severe METRIC_FLAPPING.
4. Recommendation: Verify if 'clear ip route *' was executed; if not, investigate OSPF area instability.
</reasoning>
<answer>
INFO: METRIC_FLAPPING detected. Simultaneous 1-second ages suggest a recent routing table flush or widespread OSPF LSA flood.
</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:
R 10.5.5.0/24 [120/1] via 192.168.5.1, 00:00:02

Question: Does this routing table have any routing inconsistencies?

[Assistant]
<reasoning>
1. Observation: Single RIP route with a 2-second age.
2. Analysis: RIP updates are every 30s. A 2-second age means a triggered update was received.
3. Context: Triggered updates in RIP usually mean a route went down and came back up (flapping) on the neighboring router.
4. Recommendation: Monitor the RIP neighbor 192.168.5.1 for route instability.
</reasoning>
<answer>
WARNING: METRIC_FLAPPING suspected. The 2-second age on the RIP route implies a triggered update was received due to a recent route change.
</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 203.0.113.0/24 [20/0] via 10.1.1.1, 00:00:04

Question: Analyze this routing table for metric anomalies.

[Assistant]
<reasoning>
1. Observation: BGP route with a 4-second age.
2. Analysis: BGP routes are highly stable; a 4-second age is an anomaly suggesting session re-establishment.
3. Context: This is a classic symptom of METRIC_FLAPPING at the BGP level.
4. Recommendation: Check BGP neighbor state changes for 10.1.1.1.
</reasoning>
<answer>
WARNING: METRIC_FLAPPING detected. BGP route age of 4 seconds indicates the session to 10.1.1.1 just recovered from a reset.
</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 192.168.1.0/24 [110/2] via 10.0.0.1, 00:00:01, Gi0/0
O 192.168.1.0/24 [110/2] via 10.0.0.2, 00:00:01, Gi0/1
O 192.168.1.0/24 [110/2] via 10.0.0.3, 00:00:01, Gi0/2

Question: Identify any metric anomalies in this routing table.

[Assistant]
<reasoning>
1. Observation: Three equal-cost paths all have a 1-second age.
2. Analysis: All three paths were updated at the exact same second, pointing to a single upstream event causing all LSAs to be regenerated.
3. Context: This synchronized refresh implies upstream METRIC_FLAPPING or an area-wide SPF calculation.
4. Recommendation: Investigate the ABR or ASBR common to these three paths.
</reasoning>
<answer>
WARNING: METRIC_FLAPPING detected. All three paths show 1-second ages, indicating an upstream OSPF topology change affecting all links.
</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 10.10.0.0/16 [90/30720] via 172.16.0.1, 00:00:02
D 10.10.0.0/16 [90/30720] via 172.16.0.2, 00:00:02

Question: Does this routing table have any routing inconsistencies?

[Assistant]
<reasoning>
1. Observation: Two EIGRP paths, both 2 seconds old.
2. Analysis: EIGRP only sends updates on change. Two updates at the same second imply a shared upstream link flap.
3. Context: This dual flap stresses the DUAL algorithm.
4. Recommendation: Review EIGRP query/reply logs to find the source of the topology change.
</reasoning>
<answer>
WARNING: METRIC_FLAPPING suspected. Identical 2-second ages on both EIGRP paths indicate a shared upstream topology change.
</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 10.1.1.0/24 [110/20] via 192.168.1.1, 00:00:03

Question: Identify any metric anomalies in this routing table.

[Assistant]
<reasoning>
1. Observation: Single OSPF route with a 3-second age.
2. Analysis: The short age suggests the LSA was just re-originated or re-flooded.
3. Context: Isolated route refresh often indicates METRIC_FLAPPING on the specific link.
4. Recommendation: Check interface flapping counters on the connection to 192.168.1.1.
</reasoning>
<answer>
WARNING: METRIC_FLAPPING detected. A 3-second age on a single OSPF route suggests local interface instability towards 192.168.1.1.
</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 192.168.100.0/24 [110/50] via 10.0.0.1
D 192.168.100.0/24 [90/30720] via 10.0.0.2

Question: Identify any metric anomalies in this routing table.

[Assistant]
<reasoning>
1. Observation: The same network is learned via OSPF (metric 50) and EIGRP (metric 30720).
2. Analysis: Because EIGRP AD (90) beats OSPF AD (110), the EIGRP path is active. However, comparing the metrics directly is illogical as they use different algorithms. The real issue is INCONSISTENT_METRIC behavior during redistribution.
3. Context: This typically occurs when mutual redistribution lacks seed metrics, causing routing loops or suboptimal paths.
4. Recommendation: Review redistribution points and apply consistent seed metrics.
</reasoning>
<answer>
WARNING: INCONSISTENT_METRIC detected. 192.168.100.0/24 is learned via both OSPF and EIGRP, implying redistribution without proper seed metrics.
</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 10.0.0.0/8 [20/0] via 192.168.1.1
O 10.0.0.0/8 [110/2] via 10.0.0.1

Question: Does this routing table have any routing inconsistencies?

[Assistant]
<reasoning>
1. Observation: Network 10.0.0.0/8 is known via BGP (metric 0) and OSPF (metric 2).
2. Analysis: BGP wins due to AD (20 vs 110). However, having a /8 in OSPF while also in BGP indicates an INCONSISTENT_METRIC scenario, likely from redistributing BGP into OSPF without filtering.
3. Context: This causes unnecessary OSPF LSA flooding for a BGP route.
4. Recommendation: Apply route filters to prevent BGP routes from being redistributed back into OSPF.
</reasoning>
<answer>
WARNING: INCONSISTENT_METRIC detected. The /8 network exists in both BGP and OSPF, suggesting improper redistribution causing protocol inconsistency.
</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:
R 172.16.0.0/16 [120/3] via 10.1.1.1
O 172.16.0.0/16 [110/100] via 10.1.1.2

Question: Identify any metric anomalies in this routing table.

[Assistant]
<reasoning>
1. Observation: Network learned via RIP (metric 3) and OSPF (metric 100).
2. Analysis: OSPF wins due to AD (110 vs 120). The metric inconsistency shows different protocol views of the same network, typical of INCONSISTENT_METRIC during redistribution.
3. Context: RIP counts hops, OSPF uses cost. Without seed metrics, the path chosen may not reflect actual physical topology.
4. Recommendation: Standardize on one IGP or implement proper seed metrics during redistribution.
</reasoning>
<answer>
WARNING: INCONSISTENT_METRIC detected. Conflicting protocol metrics (RIP vs OSPF) for 172.16.0.0/16 indicate poorly controlled redistribution.
</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 10.5.0.0/16 [90/156160] via 10.0.0.1
R 10.5.0.0/16 [120/2] via 10.0.0.2

Question: Analyze this routing table for metric anomalies.

[Assistant]
<reasoning>
1. Observation: EIGRP (metric 156160) and RIP (metric 2) for the same network.
2. Analysis: EIGRP is preferred (AD 90 < 120). The presence of both protocols advertising the same route points to INCONSISTENT_METRIC design.
3. Context: Running RIP and EIGRP for the same networks is generally an error unless transitioning protocols.
4. Recommendation: Decommission RIP or filter the routes to prevent duplicate advertisements.
</reasoning>
<answer>
WARNING: INCONSISTENT_METRIC detected. Duplicate routing protocols (EIGRP and RIP) for 10.5.0.0/16 indicate a messy migration or misconfiguration.
</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 192.168.1.0/24 [110/10] via 10.0.0.1
O 192.168.1.0/24 [110/10] via 10.0.0.2
D 192.168.1.0/24 [90/30720] via 10.0.0.3

Question: Identify any metric anomalies in this routing table.

[Assistant]
<reasoning>
1. Observation: OSPF has two equal paths (metric 10), and EIGRP has one (metric 30720). EIGRP is active due to AD.
2. Analysis: This is an INCONSISTENT_METRIC scenario where EIGRP overrides perfectly good OSPF ECMP paths.
3. Context: This usually happens when EIGRP redistributes an external route and advertises it back, hijacking the OSPF native paths.
4. Recommendation: Adjust AD for external EIGRP (e.g., to 120) or fix redistribution boundaries.
</reasoning>
<answer>
WARNING: INCONSISTENT_METRIC detected. EIGRP overrides OSPF ECMP paths due to AD, likely caused by a redistribution loop. Adjust EIGRP external AD.
</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 203.0.113.0/24 [20/100] via 192.168.1.1
B 203.0.113.0/24 [200/0] via 192.168.1.2

Question: Does this routing table have any routing inconsistencies?

[Assistant]
<reasoning>
1. Observation: BGP routes with AD 20 (external) and AD 200 (internal).
2. Analysis: The route via 192.168.1.2 has a metric of 0 but AD 200, meaning it was learned via iBGP. The INCONSISTENT_METRIC here is an eBGP path vs an iBGP path for the same prefix.
3. Context: This is normal in BGP, but if the eBGP link fails, the iBGP path will only be usable if an IGP route to the next-hop exists.
4. Recommendation: Verify IGP reachability to the iBGP next-hop 192.168.1.2.
</reasoning>
<answer>
INFO: INCONSISTENT_METRIC detected. eBGP and iBGP paths exist for the same prefix with different ADs. Ensure iBGP next-hop is reachable via IGP.
</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 10.10.10.0/24 [110/2] via 10.0.0.1
D 10.10.10.0/24 [170/256000] via 10.0.0.2

Question: Identify any metric anomalies in this routing table.

[Assistant]
<reasoning>
1. Observation: OSPF (AD 110) and EIGRP External (AD 170) for the same network.
2. Analysis: OSPF wins. The INCONSISTENT_METRIC arises because EIGRP is advertising this as an external route (AD 170), likely from a redistribution point.
3. Context: Having the same network as native OSPF and external EIGRP causes unnecessary memory and CPU usage.
4. Recommendation: Filter the network at the EIGRP redistribution boundary to prevent dual advertisements.
</reasoning>
<answer>
WARNING: INCONSISTENT_METRIC detected. Network is native in OSPF but external in EIGRP. Clean up redistribution filters.
</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:
R 192.168.50.0/24 [120/1] via 10.1.1.1
D 192.168.50.0/24 [90/2560000] via 10.1.1.2

Question: Analyze this routing table for metric anomalies.

[Assistant]
<reasoning>
1. Observation: RIP (metric 1) and EIGRP (metric 2560000) advertising the same network.
2. Analysis: EIGRP wins on AD. The massive metric discrepancy is a classic INCONSISTENT_METRIC issue when redistributing RIP into EIGRP without proper seed metrics.
3. Context: The EIGRP metric is artificially inflated due to default seed metric application.
4. Recommendation: Configure a specific 'default-metric' under the EIGRP process for RIP redistribution.
</reasoning>
<answer>
WARNING: INCONSISTENT_METRIC detected. EIGRP metric is heavily inflated compared to RIP, indicating missing or incorrect seed metrics during redistribution.
</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 172.16.5.0/24 [110/5] via 192.168.5.1
O E2 172.16.5.0/24 [110/20] via 192.168.5.2

Question: Identify any metric anomalies in this routing table.

[Assistant]
<reasoning>
1. Observation: OSPF internal (metric 5) and OSPF External Type 2 (metric 20) for the exact same network.
2. Analysis: This is an INCONSISTENT_METRIC anomaly. The network is natively in Area 0 but is also being redistributed from another protocol as Type 2.
3. Context: Internal routes always win over External Type 2, but the presence of both indicates a routing loop or misconfiguration at a redistribution point.
4. Recommendation: Find the ASBR redistributing 172.16.5.0/24 back into OSPF and filter it.
</reasoning>
<answer>
CRITICAL: INCONSISTENT_METRIC detected. The network is both OSPF internal and external, indicating a routing loop or severe redistribution error.
</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 10.0.0.0/8 [90/2172416] via 10.1.1.1
O 10.0.0.0/8 [110/1] via 10.1.1.2

Question: Does this routing table have any routing inconsistencies?

[Assistant]
<reasoning>
1. Observation: EIGRP and OSPF both advertising a /8 summary route.
2. Analysis: EIGRP wins on AD. The INCONSISTENT_METRIC here is that a /8 is usually a summary, and having two different protocols generate it implies overlapping summarization boundaries.
3. Context: This can cause blackholes if the summarizing routers lose connectivity to specific subnets.
4. Recommendation: Designate a single summarization point and protocol for the 10.0.0.0/8 supernet.
</reasoning>
<answer>
WARNING: INCONSISTENT_METRIC detected. Dual protocol summarization for 10.0.0.0/8 creates conflicting metric views. Consolidate summarization.
</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 198.51.100.0/24 [20/0] via 10.0.0.1
O E2 198.51.100.0/24 [110/1] via 10.0.0.2

Question: Identify any metric anomalies in this routing table.

[Assistant]
<reasoning>
1. Observation: BGP and OSPF External Type 2 for the same external network.
2. Analysis: BGP wins on AD. The INCONSISTENT_METRIC issue arises because the network was likely redistributed from BGP into OSPF with a metric of 1, which is logically incompatible with BGP's metric 0.
3. Context: This wastes OSPF resources carrying an external route that BGP already handles optimally.
4. Recommendation: Remove the redistribution of this specific BGP prefix into OSPF.
</reasoning>
<answer>
WARNING: INCONSISTENT_METRIC detected. Redundant BGP and OSPF external entries for 198.51.100.0/24. Remove unnecessary redistribution.
</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:
R 10.5.5.0/24 [120/2] via 192.168.5.1
O 10.5.5.0/24 [110/20] via 192.168.5.2
D 10.5.5.0/24 [90/30720] via 192.168.5.3

Question: Analyze this routing table for metric anomalies.

[Assistant]
<reasoning>
1. Observation: The same /24 network is advertised by RIP, OSPF, and EIGRP simultaneously.
2. Analysis: This is a severe INCONSISTENT_METRIC scenario. EIGRP wins by AD, but having three IGPs for the same network is a major design flaw.
3. Context: This causes extreme inefficiency, triple memory usage, and high risk of routing loops.
4. Recommendation: Immediately standardize on a single IGP and remove the other two protocols.
</reasoning>
<answer>
CRITICAL: INCONSISTENT_METRIC detected. Triple IGP overlap (RIP, OSPF, EIGRP) for a single network. This is a critical design error requiring immediate remediation.
</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 192.168.1.0/24 [110/2] via 10.0.0.1, 00:05:00, Gi0/0
O 192.168.1.0/24 [110/2] via 10.0.0.2, 00:05:00, Gi0/1
C 192.168.1.0/24 is directly connected, GigabitEthernet0/2

Question: Identify any metric anomalies in this routing table.

[Assistant]
<reasoning>
1. Observation: OSPF advertises a network that is also locally connected.
2. Analysis: Connected routes (AD 0) win, so OSPF routes are inactive. However, the INCONSISTENT_METRIC here is that OSPF is advertising a locally connected network back into the router.
3. Context: This indicates a misconfiguration where a connected network is being redistributed into OSPF and sent back by a neighbor.
4. Recommendation: Filter the connected network from being redistributed into OSPF, or use a route-map to prevent receiving it back.
</reasoning>
<answer>
WARNING: INCONSISTENT_METRIC detected. OSPF is advertising a directly connected network back to its origin. Fix redistribution filters.
</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 10.10.10.0/24 [90/409600] via 10.0.0.1
D 10.10.10.0/24 [170/409600] via 10.0.0.2

Question: Does this routing table have any routing inconsistencies?

[Assistant]
<reasoning>
1. Observation: EIGRP internal (AD 90) and EIGRP external (AD 170) for the same network with identical composite metrics.
2. Analysis: The internal route wins. The INCONSISTENT_METRIC is that the exact same metric appears as both internal and external, meaning an external route was redistributed and learned via another path with the exact same properties.
3. Context: This can cause confusion in topology mapping and indicates redundant redistribution paths.
4. Recommendation: Review EIGRP redistribution topology to eliminate the redundant external path.
</reasoning>
<answer>
WARNING: INCONSISTENT_METRIC detected. EIGRP internal and external routes with identical metrics suggest redundant and conflicting redistribution points.
</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 10.1.1.0/24 [110/2] via 10.0.0.1, 00:10:00, Gi0/0
O 10.1.1.0/24 [110/2] via 10.0.0.2, 00:10:00, Gi0/1

Question: Identify any metric anomalies in this routing table.

[Assistant]
<reasoning>
1. Observation: Two OSPF paths with identical metrics (2) and identical stable ages (00:10:00).
2. Analysis: The metrics are perfectly balanced, and the timers indicate no recent flapping.
3. Context: This is an optimal ECMP configuration.
4. Recommendation: No action required.
</reasoning>
<answer>
INFO: No metric anomalies detected. The routing table is healthy with perfect OSPF ECMP load balancing.
</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 192.168.5.0/24 [90/30720] via 10.0.0.1
D 192.168.5.0/24 [90/30720] via 10.0.0.2

Question: Does this routing table have any routing inconsistencies?

[Assistant]
<reasoning>
1. Observation: Two EIGRP paths with exactly the same composite metric (30720).
2. Analysis: Equal metrics in EIGRP allow for variance-based load balancing (if configured) or automatic failover.
3. Context: The metrics are stable and consistent with expected EIGRP behavior over equal-cost links.
4. Recommendation: Ensure 'variance 1' (default) or higher is set if load balancing is desired.
</reasoning>
<answer>
INFO: No metric anomalies detected. EIGRP metrics are perfectly consistent across both paths.
</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 10.0.0.0/8 [110/2] via 192.168.1.1, 00:05:30, GigabitEthernet0/0
B 203.0.113.0/24 [20/0] via 192.168.1.2, 01:20:00

Question: Analyze this routing table for metric anomalies.

[Assistant]
<reasoning>
1. Observation: Connected, OSPF, and BGP routes are present with standard ADs (0, 110, 20) and sensible metrics.
2. Analysis: There is no metric skew, flapping, or inconsistency between protocols.
3. Context: The routing table represents a standard edge router setup with a default route via OSPF and external routes via BGP.
4. Recommendation: No action required.
</reasoning>
<answer>
INFO: No metric anomalies detected. The table is healthy with proper protocol separation and stable metrics.
</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 172.16.0.0/16 [110/3] via 10.0.0.1, 00:12:00, Gi0/0
O 172.16.0.0/16 [110/3] via 10.0.0.2, 00:12:00, Gi0/1
O 172.16.0.0/16 [110/3] via 10.0.0.3, 00:12:00, Gi0/2

Question: Identify any metric anomalies in this routing table.

[Assistant]
<reasoning>
1. Observation: Three OSPF paths with identical metrics (3) and identical ages (00:12:00).
2. Analysis: This is a textbook example of healthy 3-way ECMP.
3. Context: Traffic will be distributed evenly across all three links without any flapping or skew.
4. Recommendation: No action required.
</reasoning>
<answer>
INFO: No metric anomalies detected. The table shows perfect 3-way ECMP stability.
</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:
S 10.10.10.0/24 [1/0] via 192.168.1.1
O 192.168.2.0/24 [110/2] via 192.168.1.1, 00:05:00, Gi0/0

Question: Does this routing table have any routing inconsistencies?

[Assistant]
<reasoning>
1. Observation: A static route and an OSPF route are present, using the same next-hop but for different networks.
2. Analysis: Metrics are standard (static 0, OSPF 2). There is no overlap or conflict.
3. Context: This is a normal configuration where a specific static route is used alongside dynamic routing.
4. Recommendation: No action required.
</reasoning>
<answer>
INFO: No metric anomalies detected. Static and OSPF routes coexist correctly without conflict.
</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 10.50.0.0/16 [90/156160] via 10.0.0.1
D 10.50.0.0/16 [90/156160] via 10.0.0.2

Question: Identify any metric anomalies in this routing table.

[Assistant]
<reasoning>
1. Observation: EIGRP paths with identical metrics.
2. Analysis: The composite metrics match exactly, indicating equal bandwidth and delay on both paths.
3. Context: The routing table is stable and ready for load balancing.
4. Recommendation: No action required.
</reasoning>
<answer>
INFO: No metric anomalies detected. EIGRP metrics are perfectly synchronized for load balancing.
</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 10.0.0.0/24 [110/2] via 192.168.1.1, 00:30:00, Gi0/0
O 10.0.1.0/24 [110/3] via 192.168.1.1, 00:30:00, Gi0/0
O 10.0.2.0/24 [110/4] via 192.168.1.1, 00:30:00, Gi0/0

Question: Analyze this routing table for metric anomalies.

[Assistant]
<reasoning>
1. Observation: Sequential /24 networks with incrementing OSPF metrics (2, 3, 4) and stable 30-minute timers.
2. Analysis: The incrementing metrics represent a standard linear network topology (A-B-C-D).
3. Context: There is no skew or flapping; the metrics accurately reflect hop-by-hop distance.
4. Recommendation: No action required.
</reasoning>
<answer>
INFO: No metric anomalies detected. Sequential metrics accurately reflect a linear network topology.
</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 198.51.100.0/24 [20/100] via 10.1.1.1, 01:00:00
B 198.51.100.0/24 [20/100] via 10.1.1.2, 01:00:00

Question: Identify any metric anomalies in this routing table.

[Assistant]
<reasoning>
1. Observation: Two BGP paths with identical metrics (100) and stable 1-hour ages.
2. Analysis: BGP multipath is properly configured with symmetric metrics.
3. Context: The table is healthy and stable.
4. Recommendation: No action required.
</reasoning>
<answer>
INFO: No metric anomalies detected. BGP metrics are balanced and stable for multipath routing.
</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:
R 192.168.100.0/24 [120/2] via 10.0.0.1, 00:15:00
R 192.168.100.0/24 [120/2] via 10.0.0.2, 00:15:00

Question: Does this routing table have any routing inconsistencies?

[Assistant]
<reasoning>
1. Observation: Two RIP paths with equal hop counts and stable ages.
2. Analysis: Standard RIP load balancing behavior.
3. Context: No anomalies present.
4. Recommendation: No action required.
</reasoning>
<answer>
INFO: No metric anomalies detected. RIP metrics are consistent and stable.
</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 10.1.1.0/24 [110/11] via 10.0.0.1, 00:05:00, Gi0/0
O 10.1.1.0/24 [110/11] via 10.0.0.2, 00:05:00, Gi0/1
O 10.2.2.0/24 [110/11] via 10.0.0.1, 00:05:00, Gi0/0
O 10.2.2.0/24 [110/11] via 10.0.0.2, 00:05:00, Gi0/1

Question: Identify any metric anomalies in this routing table.

[Assistant]
<reasoning>
1. Observation: Multiple networks using the same two next-hops with identical metrics (11) and stable ages.
2. Analysis: The metrics are perfectly consistent across multiple prefixes, indicating a stable hub-and-spoke or dual-homed setup.
3. Context: No flapping or skew is evident.
4. Recommendation: No action required.
</reasoning>
<answer>
INFO: No metric anomalies detected. Multiple prefixes show consistent and stable ECMP metrics.
</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 10.1.1.0/24 [110/2] via 10.0.0.1, 00:10:00, Gi0/0
O 10.1.1.0/24 [110/2000] via 10.0.0.2, 00:10:00, Gi0/1
O 10.2.2.0/24 [110/2] via 10.0.0.1, 00:10:00, Gi0/0
O 10.2.2.0/24 [110/2000] via 10.0.0.2, 00:10:00, Gi0/1
O 10.3.3.0/24 [110/2] via 10.0.0.1, 00:10:00, Gi0/0
O 10.3.3.0/24 [110/2000] via 10.0.0.2, 00:10:00, Gi0/1

Question: Analyze this routing table for metric anomalies.

[Assistant]
<reasoning>
1. Observation: Three different networks all exhibit the exact same metric skew (2 vs 2000) via the same two next-hops.
2. Analysis: The pattern is consistent across all routes, meaning this is a systematic configuration error on Gi0/1 or the router at 10.0.0.2, not a random flap.
3. Context: This breaks ECMP for the entire routing table, relying solely on Gi0/0.
4. Recommendation: Fix the root cause on the path via 10.0.0.2 (likely an 'ip ospf cost' or 'bandwidth' issue) to restore network-wide ECMP.
</reasoning>
<answer>
WARNING: METRIC_SKEW detected. A systematic 100x metric difference affects all routes via 10.0.0.2. This is a systemic configuration error breaking global ECMP.
</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 10.1.0.0/16 [90/156160] via 10.0.0.1, 00:00:02
D 10.1.0.0/16 [90/156160] via 10.0.0.2, 00:05:00
D 10.2.0.0/16 [90/156160] via 10.0.0.1, 00:00:02
D 10.2.0.0/16 [90/156160] via 10.0.0.2, 00:05:00
D 10.3.0.0/16 [90/156160] via 10.0.0.1, 00:00:02
D 10.3.0.0/16 [90/156160] via 10.0.0.2, 00:05:00

Question: Identify any metric anomalies in this routing table.

[Assistant]
<reasoning>
1. Observation: All EIGRP routes via 10.0.0.1 have a 2-second age, while all via 10.0.0.2 have a 5-minute age. Metrics are equal.
2. Analysis: The fact that *every* route via 10.0.0.1 refreshed at the same time indicates a neighbor adjacency flap or interface bounce on that link.
3. Context: This is network-wide METRIC_FLAPPING affecting all prefixes via a single upstream peer.
4. Recommendation: Immediately check the EIGRP neighbor relationship and physical link status for 10.0.0.1.
</reasoning>
<answer>
CRITICAL: METRIC_FLAPPING detected. All routes via 10.0.0.1 refreshed 2 seconds ago, indicating a total loss and recovery of the EIGRP peer or link.
</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 192.168.1.0/24 [110/2] via 10.0.0.1
D 192.168.1.0/24 [90/30720] via 10.0.0.2
O 192.168.2.0/24 [110/2] via 10.0.0.1
D 192.168.2.0/24 [90/30720] via 10.0.0.2
O 192.168.3.0/24 [110/2] via 10.0.0.1
D 192.168.3.0/24 [90/30720] via 10.0.0.2

Question: Does this routing table have any routing inconsistencies?

[Assistant]
<reasoning>
1. Observation: Three different networks are all learned via both OSPF and EIGRP with the exact same metrics for each protocol.
2. Analysis: This is a systemic INCONSISTENT_METRIC issue. EIGRP wins by AD, but the identical metrics across multiple prefixes indicate a bulk redistribution without seed metrics.
3. Context: This creates a massive dependency on EIGRP; if it fails, OSPF takes over with completely unrelated metric logic.
4. Recommendation: Re-evaluate the network design to use a single IGP, or apply proper route tagging to manage redistribution logically.
</reasoning>
<answer>
WARNING: INCONSISTENT_METRIC detected. Systemic dual-IGP overlap (OSPF vs EIGRP) across multiple networks indicates a flawed redistribution design.
</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 10.1.1.0/24 [110/2] via 10.0.0.1, 00:05:00, Gi0/0
O 10.1.1.0/24 [110/2] via 10.0.0.2, 00:05:00, Gi0/1
O 10.2.2.0/24 [110/500] via 10.0.0.1, 00:05:00, Gi0/0
O 10.2.2.0/24 [110/500] via 10.0.0.2, 00:05:00, Gi0/1

Question: Analyze this routing table for metric anomalies.

[Assistant]
<reasoning>
1. Observation: 10.1.1.0/24 has a metric of 2, while 10.2.2.0/24 has a metric of 500. Both use the exact same next-hops and have stable timers.
2. Analysis: The massive metric difference for paths that traverse the same physical links indicates an INCONSISTENT_METRIC scenario, likely where 10.2.2.0/24 is an OSPF external route (Type 1 or 2) injected with a high metric.
3. Context: While technically valid, a metric of 500 compared to 2 suggests suboptimal routing for 10.2.2.0/24.
4. Recommendation: Verify the redistribution point for 10.2.2.0/24 and lower the seed metric if the path is actually equivalent.
</reasoning>
<answer>
WARNING: INCONSISTENT_METRIC detected. 10.2.2.0/24 has a disproportionately high metric (500) compared to 10.1.1.0/24 (2) over the same paths, suggesting a redistribution issue.
</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 172.16.1.0/24 [110/2] via 10.0.0.1, 00:00:01, Gi0/0
O 172.16.1.0/24 [110/2] via 10.0.0.2, 00:05:00, Gi0/1
O 172.16.2.0/24 [110/2] via 10.0.0.1, 00:00:01, Gi0/0
O 172.16.2.0/24 [110/2] via 10.0.0.2, 00:05:00, Gi0/1
O 172.16.3.0/24 [110/2] via 10.0.0.1, 00:00:01, Gi0/0
O 172.16.3.0/24 [110/2] via 10.0.0.2, 00:05:00, Gi0/1
C 10.0.0.0/24 is directly connected, Gi0/0
C 10.0.0.0/24 is directly connected, Gi0/1

Question: Identify any metric anomalies in this routing table.

[Assistant]
<reasoning>
1. Observation: All OSPF routes via Gi0/0 have a 1-second age, while all via Gi0/1 have a 5-minute age. Connected routes are stable.
2. Analysis: A synchronized 1-second refresh across multiple prefixes on a single link is a definitive indicator of METRIC_FLAPPING due to an interface or neighbor flap on Gi0/0.
3. Context: This causes continuous SPF calculations, risking CPU exhaustion.
4. Recommendation: Check interface errors, duplex mismatch, or OSPF dead-interval settings on GigabitEthernet0/0.
</reasoning>
<answer>
CRITICAL: METRIC_FLAPPING detected. Synchronized 1-second ages on all routes via Gi0/0 indicate a severe link or OSPF adjacency flap on that interface.
</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 10.1.1.0/24 [110/2] via 10.0.0.1, 00:10:00, Gi0/0
O 10.1.1.0/24 [110/3] via 10.0.0.2, 00:10:00, Gi0/1
O 10.2.2.0/24 [110/20] via 10.0.0.1, 00:10:00, Gi0/0
O 10.2.2.0/24 [110/3000] via 10.0.0.2, 00:10:00, Gi0/1
O 10.3.3.0/24 [110/5] via 10.0.0.1, 00:10:00, Gi0/0
O 10.3.3.0/24 [110/500] via 10.0.0.2, 00:10:00, Gi0/1

Question: Analyze this routing table for metric anomalies.

[Assistant]
<reasoning>
1. Observation: Three networks show a consistent, exact 100x or 150x metric skew via 10.0.0.2 compared to 10.0.0.1 (e.g., 3 vs 3000, 5 vs 500).
2. Analysis: This is a systematic METRIC_SKEW. The ratio of skew is consistent, implying a single root cause like an 'ip ospf cost' multiplier error or a missing bandwidth statement on Gi0/1 that is compounding per hop.
3. Context: ECMP is completely broken network-wide for all destinations via 10.0.0.2.
4. Recommendation: Inspect the interface configuration on GigabitEthernet0/1 and the router at 10.0.0.2 for systematic cost miscalculation.
</reasoning>
<answer>
WARNING: METRIC_SKEW detected. A consistent, proportional metric inflation affects all routes via 10.0.0.2. This is a systematic error breaking all ECMP paths.
</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 192.168.1.0/24 [90/30720] via 10.0.0.1
R 192.168.1.0/24 [120/1] via 10.0.0.2
D 192.168.2.0/24 [90/30720] via 10.0.0.1
R 192.168.2.0/24 [120/1] via 10.0.0.2
D 192.168.3.0/24 [90/30720] via 10.0.0.1
R 192.168.3.0/24 [120/1] via 10.0.0.2
C 10.0.0.0/24 is directly connected, Gi0/0
C 10.0.0.0/24 is directly connected, Gi0/1

Question: Identify any metric anomalies in this routing table.

[Assistant]
<reasoning>
1. Observation: Every route is learned via both EIGRP and RIP. EIGRP metrics are constant (30720), and RIP metrics are constant (1).
2. Analysis: This is a systemic INCONSISTENT_METRIC issue. Running dual IGPs for the exact same prefixes is a critical design flaw.
3. Context: EIGRP wins by AD, but the RIP processes consume resources and create confusion.
4. Recommendation: Disable RIP on this router and the network.
</reasoning>
<answer>
CRITICAL: INCONSISTENT_METRIC detected. Complete overlap of EIGRP and RIP for all prefixes indicates a critical routing protocol design failure.
</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 10.1.1.0/24 [110/2] via 10.0.0.1, 00:05:00, Gi0/0
O 10.1.1.0/24 [110/2] via 10.0.0.2, 00:05:00, Gi0/1
O 10.2.2.0/24 [110/3] via 10.0.0.1, 00:05:00, Gi0/0
O 10.2.2.0/24 [110/3] via 10.0.0.2, 00:05:00, Gi0/1
O 10.3.3.0/24 [110/2] via 10.0.0.1, 00:05:00, Gi0/0
O 10.3.3.0/24 [110/2] via 10.0.0.2, 00:05:00, Gi0/1
C 10.0.0.0/24 is directly connected, Gi0/0
C 10.0.0.0/24 is directly connected, Gi0/1
S 0.0.0.0/0 [1/0] via 10.0.0.1

Question: Analyze this routing table for metric anomalies.

[Assistant]
<reasoning>
1. Observation: Multiple OSPF routes show perfect ECMP (equal metrics, stable timers). There is a static default route.
2. Analysis: The metrics are logical (2, 3, 2) and consistent across parallel links. There is no flapping or skew.
3. Context: This represents a highly stable, optimally configured dual-homed network.
4. Recommendation: No action required.
</reasoning>
<answer>
INFO: No metric anomalies detected. The routing table is perfectly healthy with stable ECMP and a standard default route.
</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 10.1.1.0/24 [110/2] via 10.0.0.1, 00:00:02, Gi0/0
O 10.1.1.0/24 [110/3] via 10.0.0.2, 00:00:02, Gi0/1
O 10.2.2.0/24 [110/2] via 10.0.0.1, 00:00:02, Gi0/0
O 10.2.2.0/24 [110/3] via 10.0.0.2, 00:00:02, Gi0/1
O 10.3.3.0/24 [110/2] via 10.0.0.1, 00:00:02, Gi0/0
O 10.3.3.0/24 [110/3] via 10.0.0.2, 00:00:02, Gi0/1

Question: Identify any metric anomalies in this routing table.

[Assistant]
<reasoning>
1. Observation: All routes via 10.0.0.1 have metric 2, all via 10.0.0.2 have metric 3. Crucially, ALL routes have a 2-second age.
2. Analysis: The simultaneous 2-second age across all routes on both links indicates a network-wide OSPF event (like an LSA flood or SPF recalculation). The metric difference (2 vs 3) is minor but breaks ECMP.
3. Context: The combination of METRIC_FLAPPING (timers) and minor METRIC_SKEW suggests an unstable upstream router affecting both paths.
4. Recommendation: Investigate upstream OSPF neighbors for instability and correct the minor cost mismatch (2 vs 3) to enable ECMP once stable.
</reasoning>
<answer>
CRITICAL: METRIC_FLAPPING combined with METRIC_SKEW detected. Network-wide 2-second route refresh indicates severe upstream instability, compounded by unequal costs breaking ECMP.
</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 10.1.1.0/24 [110/2] via 10.0.0.1, 00:05:00, Gi0/0
O 10.1.1.0/24 [110/2] via 10.0.0.2, 00:05:00, Gi0/1
O 10.2.2.0/24 [110/2] via 10.0.0.1, 00:05:00, Gi0/0
D 10.2.2.0/24 [90/30720] via 10.0.0.2, 00:05:00, Gi0/1
O 10.3.3.0/24 [110/2] via 10.0.0.1, 00:05:00, Gi0/0
O 10.3.3.0/24 [110/2] via 10.0.0.2, 00:05:00, Gi0/1

Question: Does this routing table have any routing inconsistencies?

[Assistant]
<reasoning>
1. Observation: For 10.2.2.0/24, the path via 10.0.0.1 is OSPF, but the path via 10.0.0.2 is EIGRP. Other networks use OSPF for both paths.
2. Analysis: This is an isolated INCONSISTENT_METRIC anomaly. EIGRP wins by AD for the second path, breaking ECMP for that specific /24.
3. Context: This usually happens when a specific route is leaked or redistributed on one side of the network but not the other.
4. Recommendation: Investigate the configuration on the router at 10.0.0.2 to find why it is advertising 10.2.2.0/24 via EIGRP instead of OSPF.
</reasoning>
<answer>
WARNING: INCONSISTENT_METRIC detected. 10.2.2.0/24 breaks the ECMP pattern by using EIGRP via 10.0.0.2. Investigate route leakage on that peer.
</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 10.1.1.0/24 [110/2] via 10.0.0.1, 00:10:00, Gi0/0
O 10.1.1.0/24 [110/2] via 10.0.0.2, 00:10:00, Gi0/1
O 10.2.2.0/24 [110/100] via 10.0.0.1, 00:10:00, Gi0/0
O 10.2.2.0/24 [110/100] via 10.0.0.2, 00:10:00, Gi0/1
O 10.3.3.0/24 [110/2] via 10.0.0.1, 00:10:00, Gi0/0
O 10.3.3.0/24 [110/2] via 10.0.0.2, 00:10:00, Gi0/1

Question: Identify any metric anomalies in this routing table.

[Assistant]
<reasoning>
1. Observation: 10.2.2.0/24 has a metric of 100, while adjacent networks have a metric of 2. The 100 metric is balanced across both links (ECMP is intact).
2. Analysis: There is no flapping or skew between the links. However, the INCONSISTENT_METRIC for 10.2.2.0/24 suggests it is an external route (Type 1) or has a manually set cost.
3. Context: While ECMP works, the high metric suggests an inefficient path or a redistribution penalty.
4. Recommendation: Verify if 10.2.2.0/24 is an external OSPF route and adjust the seed metric if necessary.
</reasoning>
<answer>
INFO: INCONSISTENT_METRIC detected. 10.2.2.0/24 has a disproportionately high metric (100) compared to similar routes (2), likely due to external redistribution, though ECMP is maintained.
</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 10.1.1.0/24 [110/2] via 10.0.0.1, 00:00:01, Gi0/0
O 10.1.1.0/24 [110/2000] via 10.0.0.2, 00:10:00, Gi0/1
O 10.2.2.0/24 [110/2] via 10.0.0.1, 00:00:01, Gi0/0
O 10.2.2.0/24 [110/2000] via 10.0.0.2, 00:10:00, Gi0/1
O 10.3.3.0/24 [110/2] via 10.0.0.1, 00:00:01, Gi0/0
O 10.3.3.0/24 [110/2000] via 10.0.0.2, 00:10:00, Gi0/1

Question: Analyze this routing table for metric anomalies.

[Assistant]
<reasoning>
1. Observation: Systemic 100x METRIC_SKEW via 10.0.0.2. Additionally, all routes via 10.0.0.1 have a 1-second age (METRIC_FLAPPING), while 10.0.0.2 is stable at 10 minutes.
2. Analysis: The primary path (Gi0/0) is actively flapping, causing constant LSA refreshes. The backup path (Gi0/1) is stable but has a severely misconfigured metric.
3. Context: This is a worst-case scenario: active instability on the best path, and a broken metric on the backup path preventing smooth failover.
4. Recommendation: Urgently fix the physical/link instability on Gi0/0 and correct the OSPF cost on Gi0/1 to ensure a viable backup.
</reasoning>
<answer>
CRITICAL: Combined METRIC_FLAPPING (1s age) and METRIC_SKEW (100x difference) detected. The primary link is unstable, and the backup link has a broken metric, leaving the network highly vulnerable.
</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 10.1.1.0/24 [110/2] via 10.0.0.1, 00:05:00, Gi0/0
O 10.1.1.0/24 [110/2] via 10.0.0.2, 00:05:00, Gi0/1
D 10.2.2.0/24 [90/30720] via 10.0.0.1, 00:05:00, Gi0/0
D 10.2.2.0/24 [90/30720] via 10.0.0.2, 00:05:00, Gi0/1
O 10.3.3.0/24 [110/2] via 10.0.0.1, 00:05:00, Gi0/0
O 10.3.3.0/24 [110/2] via 10.0.0.2, 00:05:00, Gi0/1

Question: Identify any metric anomalies in this routing table.

[Assistant]
<reasoning>
1. Observation: 10.2.2.0/24 is routed via EIGRP, while 10.1.1.0/24 and 10.3.3.0/24 are routed via OSPF. All have equal-cost dual paths and stable 5-minute timers.
2. Analysis: There is no flapping or skew. The INCONSISTENT_METRIC is that 10.2.2.0/24 uses a different IGP than the others over the exact same physical paths.
3. Context: This indicates a mixed-IGP environment or a specific redistribution zone for 10.2.2.0/24.
4. Recommendation: If this is intentional (e.g., migration), it is fine. Otherwise, standardize on one IGP.
</reasoning>
<answer>
INFO: INCONSISTENT_METRIC detected. 10.2.2.0/24 uses EIGRP while others use OSPF over the same paths. No instability, but design may need review for consistency.
</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 10.1.1.0/24 [110/2] via 10.0.0.1, 00:00:02, Gi0/0
O 10.1.1.0/24 [110/2] via 10.0.0.2, 00:00:02, Gi0/1
O 10.2.2.0/24 [110/2] via 10.0.0.1, 00:00:02, Gi0/0
O 10.2.2.0/24 [110/2] via 10.0.0.2, 00:00:02, Gi0/1
O 10.3.3.0/24 [110/2] via 10.0.0.1, 00:00:02, Gi0/0
O 10.3.3.0/24 [110/2] via 10.0.0.2, 00:00:02, Gi0/1
C 10.0.0.0/24 is directly connected, Gi0/0
C 10.0.0.0/24 is directly connected, Gi0/1

Question: Analyze this routing table for metric anomalies.

[Assistant]
<reasoning>
1. Observation: Perfect ECMP across all networks. However, every single OSPF route has a 2-second age.
2. Analysis: The metrics are perfectly balanced (no skew), but the synchronized 2-second age across all routes on both links indicates a massive METRIC_FLAPPING event, like an Area 0 SPF flood or a shared upstream ABR flapping.
3. Context: While traffic is currently balanced, the CPU is under severe stress from continuous SPF calculations.
4. Recommendation: Investigate the OSPF Area 0 stability or check for a flapping ABR upstream.
</reasoning>
<answer>
CRITICAL: METRIC_FLAPPING detected. Despite perfect ECMP metrics, the synchronized 2-second age across all routes indicates a severe Area-wide OSPF instability event.
</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 10.1.1.0/24 [110/20] via 10.0.0.1, 00:10:00, Gi0/0
O 10.1.1.0/24 [110/20] via 10.0.0.2, 00:10:00, Gi0/1
O 10.2.2.0/24 [110/2000] via 10.0.0.1, 00:10:00, Gi0/0
O 10.2.2.0/24 [110/2000] via 10.0.0.2, 00:10:00, Gi0/1
O 10.3.3.0/24 [110/20] via 10.0.0.1, 00:10:00, Gi0/0
O 10.3.3.0/24 [110/20] via 10.0.0.2, 00:10:00, Gi0/1

Question: Identify any metric anomalies in this routing table.

[Assistant]
<reasoning>
1. Observation: 10.2.2.0/24 has a metric of 2000, while the others have 20. The skew is exactly 100x. All routes have stable timers and perfect ECMP within their respective metric values.
2. Analysis: There is no flapping. This is an isolated INCONSISTENT_METRIC issue for 10.2.2.0/24, likely an OSPF Type 2 external route injected with a high metric.
3. Context: The network is stable, but the path to 10.2.2.0/24 is treated as highly suboptimal compared to neighboring networks.
4. Recommendation: Review the redistribution configuration for 10.2.2.0/24 to align its metric with the network baseline.
</reasoning>
<answer>
WARNING: INCONSISTENT_METRIC detected. 10.2.2.0/24 has a 100x higher metric than similar routes, suggesting an external route injection with a misconfigured seed metric.
</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 10.1.1.0/24 [110/2] via 10.0.0.1, 00:05:00, Gi0/0
O 10.1.1.0/24 [110/2] via 10.0.0.2, 00:05:00, Gi0/1
O 10.2.2.0/24 [110/3] via 10.0.0.1, 00:05:00, Gi0/0
O 10.2.2.0/24 [110/300] via 10.0.0.2, 00:05:00, Gi0/1
O 10.3.3.0/24 [110/2] via 10.0.0.1, 00:05:00, Gi0/0
O 10.3.3.0/24 [110/2] via 10.0.0.2, 00:05:00, Gi0/1

Question: Does this routing table have any routing inconsistencies?

[Assistant]
<reasoning>
1. Observation: Most routes have perfect ECMP (metric 2). However, 10.2.2.0/24 has a metric of 3 via Gi0/0 and 300 via Gi0/1 (100x skew).
2. Analysis: An isolated METRIC_SKEW on a single prefix over a link that otherwise works fine (carrying 10.1.1.0/24 and 10.3.3.0/24 with metric 2) points to a per-prefix cost configuration error on the router at 10.0.0.2.
3. Context: This breaks ECMP only for 10.2.2.0/24, routing it exclusively via Gi0/0.
4. Recommendation: Check for prefix-lists or route-maps applying an 'ip ospf cost' override for 10.2.2.0/24 on the neighbor 10.0.0.2.
</reasoning>
<answer>
WARNING: Isolated METRIC_SKEW detected. 10.2.2.0/24 has a 100x higher metric via 10.0.0.2, while other routes via that link are normal. Look for a prefix-specific OSPF cost override.
</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 10.1.1.0/24 [110/2] via 10.0.0.1, 00:05:00, Gi0/0
O 10.1.1.0/24 [110/2] via 10.0.0.2, 00:05:00, Gi0/1
D 10.2.2.0/24 [90/30720] via 10.0.0.1, 00:05:00, Gi0/0
R 10.2.2.0/24 [120/1] via 10.0.0.2, 00:05:00, Gi0/1
O 10.3.3.0/24 [110/2] via 10.0.0.1, 00:05:00, Gi0/0
O 10.3.3.0/24 [110/2] via 10.0.0.2, 00:05:00, Gi0/1

Question: Identify any metric anomalies in this routing table.

[Assistant]
<reasoning>
1. Observation: 10.2.2.0/24 uses EIGRP via 10.0.0.1 and RIP via 10.0.0.2. Other networks use OSPF ECMP.
2. Analysis: This is a severe INCONSISTENT_METRIC issue isolated to one prefix. It indicates a messy environment where 10.2.2.0/24 is leaked via different protocols on different links.
3. Context: EIGRP wins by AD, but the lack of protocol consistency makes troubleshooting difficult.
4. Recommendation: Standardize the routing protocol for 10.2.2.0/24 across both links to match the rest of the network (OSPF).
</reasoning>
<answer>
WARNING: INCONSISTENT_METRIC detected. 10.2.2.0/24 is advertised via EIGRP and RIP on parallel links, deviating entirely from the OSPF baseline. Standardize the IGP.
</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 10.1.1.0/24 [110/2] via 10.0.0.1, 00:00:02, Gi0/0
O 10.1.1.0/24 [110/2] via 10.0.0.2, 00:05:00, Gi0/1
O 10.2.2.0/24 [110/2] via 10.0.0.1, 00:00:02, Gi0/0
O 10.2.2.0/24 [110/2] via 10.0.0.2, 00:05:00, Gi0/1
O 10.3.3.0/24 [110/2] via 10.0.0.1, 00:00:02, Gi0/0
O 10.3.3.0/24 [110/2] via 10.0.0.2, 00:05:00, Gi0/1

Question: Analyze this routing table for metric anomalies.

[Assistant]
<reasoning>
1. Observation: Metrics are perfectly equal for ECMP. However, all routes via Gi0/0 have a 2-second age, while Gi0/1 routes have a 5-minute age.
2. Analysis: This is a clear case of METRIC_FLAPPING isolated to the link Gi0/0. The metrics themselves are not skewed, but their freshness indicates churn.
3. Context: Traffic is currently load-balanced, but if Gi0/0 drops completely, all traffic will instantly shift to Gi0/1, potentially causing micro-bursts.
4. Recommendation: Investigate Gi0/0 for physical errors or OSPF neighbor instability to stop the flapping.
</reasoning>
<answer>
WARNING: Isolated METRIC_FLAPPING detected. All routes via Gi0/0 show a 2-second age, indicating link-specific instability despite perfect metric balance.
</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 10.1.1.0/24 [110/2] via 10.0.0.1, 00:10:00, Gi0/0
O 10.1.1.0/24 [110/2] via 10.0.0.2, 00:10:00, Gi0/1
O 10.2.2.0/24 [110/2] via 10.0.0.1, 00:10:00, Gi0/0
O 10.2.2.0/24 [110/2] via 10.0.0.2, 00:10:00, Gi0/1
O 10.3.3.0/24 [110/2] via 10.0.0.1, 00:10:00, Gi0/0
O 10.3.3.0/24 [110/2] via 10.0.0.2, 00:10:00, Gi0/1
C 10.0.0.0/24 is directly connected, Gi0/0
C 10.0.0.0/24 is directly connected, Gi0/1
S 0.0.0.0/0 [1/0] via 10.0.0.254

Question: Identify any metric anomalies in this routing table.

[Assistant]
<reasoning>
1. Observation: The table contains multiple OSPF routes with identical metrics (2), stable 10-minute timers, directly connected interfaces, and a static default route.
2. Analysis: No metric skew, flapping, or inconsistency is present. The OSPF cost of 2 is uniform and logical for 1Gbps links with default reference bandwidth.
3. Context: This is an optimal, stable dual-homed edge router configuration.
4. Recommendation: No action required.
</reasoning>
<answer>
INFO: No metric anomalies detected. The routing table is perfectly healthy, demonstrating stable ECMP and standard default routing.
</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 10.1.1.0/24 [110/2] via 10.0.0.1, 00:00:01, Gi0/0
O 10.1.1.0/24 [110/200] via 10.0.0.2, 00:10:00, Gi0/1
O 10.2.2.0/24 [110/2] via 10.0.0.1, 00:00:01, Gi0/0
O 10.2.2.0/24 [110/200] via 10.0.0.2, 00:10:00, Gi0/1
O 10.3.3.0/24 [110/2] via 10.0.0.1, 00:00:01, Gi0/0
O 10.3.3.0/24 [110/200] via 10.0.0.2, 00:10:00, Gi0/1

Question: Does this routing table have any routing inconsistencies?

[Assistant]
<reasoning>
1. Observation: Systemic 100x METRIC_SKEW via 10.0.0.2. Additionally, all routes via 10.0.0.1 have a 1-second age (METRIC_FLAPPING), while 10.0.0.2 is stable.
2. Analysis: The primary path (Gi0/0) is flapping, and the backup path (Gi0/1) has a severely misconfigured metric.
3. Context: This combination means the network relies on an unstable primary link because the backup link is effectively penalized out of use.
4. Recommendation: Fix Gi0/0 instability immediately and correct the OSPF cost on Gi0/1 to ensure a viable backup.
</reasoning>
<answer>
CRITICAL: Combined METRIC_FLAPPING and METRIC_SKEW detected. Primary link Gi0/0 is highly unstable, and backup Gi0/1 has a 100x metric penalty, leaving the network with no reliable path.
</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 10.1.1.0/24 [90/30720] via 10.0.0.1, 00:05:00
D 10.1.1.0/24 [90/30720] via 10.0.0.2, 00:05:00
D 10.2.2.0/24 [90/30720] via 10.0.0.1, 00:05:00
D 10.2.2.0/24 [90/156160] via 10.0.0.2, 00:05:00
D 10.3.3.0/24 [90/30720] via 10.0.0.1, 00:05:00
D 10.3.3.0/24 [90/30720] via 10.0.0.2, 00:05:00

Question: Identify any metric anomalies in this routing table.

[Assistant]
<reasoning>
1. Observation: EIGRP metrics are perfectly equal (30720) for all routes except 10.2.2.0/24 via 10.0.0.2, which is 156160 (5x higher).
2. Analysis: This is an isolated METRIC_SKEW. The exact 5x multiplier typically indicates a bandwidth difference (e.g., 100Mbps vs 20Mbps) or an added delay on that specific path.
3. Context: ECMP is broken only for 10.2.2.0/24.
4. Recommendation: Check the interface bandwidth and delay settings for the path to 10.2.2.0/24 via 10.0.0.2.
</reasoning>
<answer>
WARNING: Isolated METRIC_SKEW detected. 10.2.2.0/24 has a 5x higher metric via 10.0.0.2, breaking ECMP for that specific prefix. Verify interface parameters.
</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 10.1.1.0/24 [110/2] via 10.0.0.1, 00:00:02, Gi0/0
O 10.1.1.0/24 [110/2] via 10.0.0.2, 00:00:02, Gi0/1
D 10.2.2.0/24 [90/30720] via 10.0.0.1, 00:00:02, Gi0/0
D 10.2.2.0/24 [90/30720] via 10.0.0.2, 00:00:02, Gi0/1
O 10.3.3.0/24 [110/2] via 10.0.0.1, 00:00:02, Gi0/0
O 10.3.3.0/24 [110/2] via 10.0.0.2, 00:00:02, Gi0/1

Question: Analyze this routing table for metric anomalies.

[Assistant]
<reasoning>
1. Observation: All routes (both OSPF and EIGRP) have a synchronized 2-second age. ECMP metrics are perfect within their protocols.
2. Analysis: The synchronized refresh across two different routing protocols indicates a systemic issue, likely an interface flap on the local router (Gi0/0 and Gi0/1 are on the same card) or a total upstream failure.
3. Context: This is widespread METRIC_FLAPPING affecting all routing peers simultaneously.
4. Recommendation: Check local router interface status and CPU utilization, as this looks like a local line-card issue rather than individual peer flapping.
</reasoning>
<answer>
CRITICAL: Systemic METRIC_FLAPPING detected. The synchronized 2-second age across both OSPF and EIGRP suggests a local hardware or line-card issue causing total routing table churn.
</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 10.1.1.0/24 [110/2] via 10.0.0.1, 00:10:00, Gi0/0
O 10.1.1.0/24 [110/2] via 10.0.0.2, 00:10:00, Gi0/1
O 10.2.2.0/24 [110/3] via 10.0.0.1, 00:10:00, Gi0/0
O 10.2.2.0/24 [110/3] via 10.0.0.2, 00:10:00, Gi0/1
O 10.3.3.0/24 [110/2] via 10.0.0.1, 00:10:00, Gi0/0
O 10.3.3.0/24 [110/2] via 10.0.0.2, 00:10:00, Gi0/1

Question: Identify any metric anomalies in this routing table.

[Assistant]
<reasoning>
1. Observation: All routes have stable 10-minute timers and perfect ECMP. 10.2.2.0/24 has a metric of 3, while others have 2.
2. Analysis: The metric difference of 1 for 10.2.2.0/24 is logical and consistent across both paths, indicating it is one hop further away than the others. This is not an anomaly.
3. Context: The routing table accurately reflects the network topology.
4. Recommendation: No action required.
</reasoning>
<answer>
INFO: No metric anomalies detected. The table is healthy; the metric of 3 for 10.2.2.0/24 accurately reflects its position in the topology.
</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 10.1.1.0/24 [110/2] via 10.0.0.1, 00:10:00, Gi0/0
O 10.1.1.0/24 [110/2] via 10.0.0.2, 00:10:00, Gi0/1
O 10.2.2.0/24 [110/20] via 10.0.0.1, 00:10:00, Gi0/0
O 10.2.2.0/24 [110/20] via 10.0.0.2, 00:10:00, Gi0/1
O 10.3.3.0/24 [110/200] via 10.0.0.1, 00:10:00, Gi0/0
O 10.3.3.0/24 [110/200] via 10.0.0.2, 00:10:00, Gi0/1

Question: Does this routing table have any routing inconsistencies?

[Assistant]
<reasoning>
1. Observation: Perfect ECMP across all routes. However, metrics scale by exactly 10x between prefixes (2, 20, 200).
2. Analysis: While stable, this exact 10x scaling is unusual for sequential subnets and suggests an INCONSISTENT_METRIC configuration, such as manual cost overrides or a strange OSPF auto-cost calculation based on differing interface speeds in the path.
3. Context: It works, but it's not standard. If these are identical paths, the metrics should be identical.
4. Recommendation: Verify why the cost scales by 10x per subnet. If they traverse the same links, correct the manual costs.
</reasoning>
<answer>
WARNING: INCONSISTENT_METRIC detected. Exact 10x metric scaling (2, 20, 200) across similar prefixes is highly unusual and suggests systematic manual cost misconfiguration.
</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 10.1.1.0/24 [110/2] via 10.0.0.1, 00:00:01, Gi0/0
O 10.1.1.0/24 [110/2] via 10.0.0.2, 00:10:00, Gi0/1
O 10.2.2.0/24 [110/20] via 10.0.0.1, 00:00:01, Gi0/0
O 10.2.2.0/24 [110/20] via 10.0.0.2, 00:10:00, Gi0/1
O 10.3.3.0/24 [110/200] via 10.0.0.1, 00:00:01, Gi0/0
O 10.3.3.0/24 [110/200] via 10.0.0.2, 00:10:00, Gi0/1

Question: Identify any metric anomalies in this routing table.

[Assistant]
<reasoning>
1. Observation: All routes via Gi0/0 have a 1-second age (METRIC_FLAPPING). Additionally, the metrics scale by 10x (2, 20, 200), which is an INCONSISTENT_METRIC pattern.
2. Analysis: The flapping is isolated to Gi0/0. The 10x metric scaling adds complexity, suggesting that even if the link stops flapping, the paths are artificially skewed.
3. Context: The network is currently unstable on the primary link and has underlying metric misconfigurations on all links.
4. Recommendation: First, stabilize Gi0/0. Second, audit the OSPF costs causing the 10x scaling across prefixes.
</reasoning>
<answer>
CRITICAL: Combined METRIC_FLAPPING on Gi0/0 and INCONSISTENT_METRIC scaling (10x) detected. Immediate stabilization of Gi0/0 and a metric audit are required.
</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 10.1.1.0/24 [110/2] via 10.0.0.1, 00:05:00, Gi0/0
O 10.1.1.0/24 [110/2000] via 10.0.0.2, 00:05:00, Gi0/1
O 10.2.2.0/24 [110/2] via 10.0.0.1, 00:05:00, Gi0/0
O 10.2.2.0/24 [110/2000] via 10.0.0.2, 00:05:00, Gi0/1
O 10.3.3.0/24 [110/2] via 10.0.0.1, 00:05:00, Gi0/0
O 10.3.3.0/24 [110/2] via 10.0.0.2, 00:05:00, Gi0/1

Question: Analyze this routing table for metric anomalies.

[Assistant]
<reasoning>
1. Observation: 10.1.1.0/24 and 10.2.2.0/24 have a 100x METRIC_SKEW via 10.0.0.2. 10.3.3.0/24 has perfect ECMP (metric 2). All timers are stable.
2. Analysis: The skew is isolated to specific prefixes. This suggests a per-prefix route-map applying an OSPF cost override for 10.1.1.0/24 and 10.2.2.0/24 on the path via 10.0.0.2, while 10.3.3.0/24 is unaffected.
3. Context: This breaks ECMP selectively, potentially for traffic engineering purposes, but looks like an error if unintended.
4. Recommendation: Check for prefix-lists or route-maps on the neighbor 10.0.0.2 that modify OSPF costs.
</reasoning>
<answer>
WARNING: Selective METRIC_SKEW detected. 100x cost difference applies only to specific prefixes via 10.0.0.2, indicating a per-prefix route-map configuration.
</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 10.1.1.0/24 [110/2] via 10.0.0.1, 00:05:00, Gi0/0
O 10.1.1.0/24 [110/2] via 10.0.0.2, 00:05:00, Gi0/1
D 10.2.2.0/24 [90/30720] via 10.0.0.1, 00:05:00, Gi0/0
D 10.2.2.0/24 [170/30720] via 10.0.0.2, 00:05:00, Gi0/1
O 10.3.3.0/24 [110/2] via 10.0.0.1, 00:05:00, Gi0/0
O 10.3.3.0/24 [110/2] via 10.0.0.2, 00:05:00, Gi0/1

Question: Identify any metric anomalies in this routing table.

[Assistant]
<reasoning>
1. Observation: 10.2.2.0/24 has EIGRP internal (AD 90) via 10.0.0.1 and EIGRP external (AD 170) via 10.0.0.2 with the same composite metric. Other routes are stable OSPF ECMP.
2. Analysis: This is an INCONSISTENT_METRIC anomaly. The same metric appearing as internal and external implies one path is native EIGRP and the other is redistributed into EIGRP from another protocol.
3. Context: EIGRP internal will always be preferred, breaking ECMP for that prefix.
4. Recommendation: Investigate why 10.0.0.2 is advertising 10.2.2.0/24 as an external route instead of internal.
</reasoning>
<answer>
WARNING: INCONSISTENT_METRIC detected. 10.2.2.0/24 is internal EIGRP via one path and external EIGRP via the other, breaking ECMP. Investigate redistribution on 10.0.0.2.
</answer>