(Solved): Note: Please do not copy and paste answers from other similar questions. Consider the routing scena ...

Note: Please do not copy and paste answers from other similar questions.

Consider the routing scenario in the Figure shown below. An autonomous system (AS 1) is connected to the Internet via two providers. The router R1 in Sydney is running EBGP with a provider P1 over a T1 circuit, and the router R2 in Melbourne is running EBGP with another provider P2 over a T3 circuit. (P1 and P2 are not show in the figure.)

The two border routers R1 and R2 use IBGP to communicate with each other but there is no direct physical link connecting the two. The internal routers R3, R4, and R5 are non-BGP routers and exchange routes with one another using an Interior gateway Protocol (IGP).

In the current scenario, R1 and R2 are receiving full routes from their parent providers P1 and P2 respectively. Both R1 and R2 are also injecting a 0/0 default route inside AS1. Furthermore, the MEL T3 link at R2 is configured as the primary link. The SYD T1 link at R1 will be used as a backup, and consequently all outbound traffic will exit the AS through R2. Interior routers R3, R4, and R5 do not see external routes and simply follow the early exit routing strategy (also known as Hot Potato Routing) by forwarding all packets to the nearest exit point. Give and explain one reason why this topology is error prone. Recommend and explain two solutions to fix or avoid this problem.

???????