Inspect stack role, heartbeat, split-brain detection state and inter-member link health. This check would diagnose Switch stacking split-brain, but would not first isolate the described Route-policy next-hop and preference application. Begin with: Inspect matching rule, applied attributes, selected route and resolved FIB next hop.

Check route tags, source protocol, import-route statements and re-advertisement history. This check would diagnose Redistribution route tag loop avoidance, but would not first isolate the described Route-policy next-hop and preference application. Begin with: Inspect matching rule, applied attributes, selected route and resolved FIB next hop.

Inspect PBR classifier, interface direction, policy hits and a traffic trace. This check would diagnose Policy-based routing for approved application, but would not first isolate the described Route-policy next-hop and preference application. Begin with: Inspect matching rule, applied attributes, selected route and resolved FIB next hop.

Validate supported CSS inter-chassis links, roles, redundancy and a controlled master-failover test. This is a legitimate response to the different issue of CSS chassis clustering and failover, but it does not correct the specific Policy-based routing for approved application condition reported. The relevant technical distinction is: Policy-based routing can select forwarding based on packet attributes before conventional destination routing.

Mark imported routes and deny reimport of already redistributed origins with controlled route tags. This is a legitimate response to the different issue of Redistribution route tag loop avoidance, but it does not correct the specific Policy-based routing for approved application condition reported. The relevant technical distinction is: Policy-based routing can select forwarding based on packet attributes before conventional destination routing.

Implement supported stack split-brain detection and redundant stack interconnects before production. This is a legitimate response to the different issue of Switch stacking split-brain, but it does not correct the specific Policy-based routing for approved application condition reported. The relevant technical distinction is: Policy-based routing can select forwarding based on packet attributes before conventional destination routing.

Peak sample clients receive valid leases across assigned pool VLANs without crossing unauthorized policy boundaries. That observation would support a separate case of WLAN VLAN pool address distribution, not verification of the reported Policy-based routing for approved application. The relevant observable outcome here is: Only the approved source/application flows follow the private WAN while nonmatching traffic uses normal routing.

Only the approved external advertisements appear on the peer and internal prefixes remain private. That observation would support a separate case of BGP prefix export-filter leak, not verification of the reported Policy-based routing for approved application. The relevant observable outcome here is: Only the approved source/application flows follow the private WAN while nonmatching traffic uses normal routing.

Every prefix has a stable authoritative origin and route import does not recursively reappear. That observation would support a separate case of Redistribution route tag loop avoidance, not verification of the reported Policy-based routing for approved application. The relevant observable outcome here is: Only the approved source/application flows follow the private WAN while nonmatching traffic uses normal routing.

Edge-port safeguards prevent unintended bridge participation where endpoint-only connections are expected. This explains RSTP edge-port BPDU protection, but not why the issue in this scenario occurs. The specific mechanism is: Policy-based routing can select forwarding based on packet attributes before conventional destination routing.

BGP MED is a nontransitive hint often compared among paths learned from the same neighboring AS. This explains BGP MED same-neighbor-AS comparison, but not why the issue in this scenario occurs. The specific mechanism is: Policy-based routing can select forwarding based on packet attributes before conventional destination routing.

Ordered route-policy matching stops at an applicable node and its permit or deny behavior. This explains Route-policy permit and deny node order, but not why the issue in this scenario occurs. The specific mechanism is: Policy-based routing can select forwarding based on packet attributes before conventional destination routing.

Misconfigured reflector clusters can suppress valid routes or permit duplicate advertisements. This consequence is associated more directly with BGP route reflector cluster loop prevention. For the stated conditions the immediate exposure is: A broad PBR match may reroute critical unrelated flows and bypass intended segmentation.

An untracked policy next hop can blackhole a subset of application traffic while global routing remains healthy. This consequence is associated more directly with PBR failed-next-hop fallback. For the stated conditions the immediate exposure is: A broad PBR match may reroute critical unrelated flows and bypass intended segmentation.

An otherwise live router can remain a dead-end gateway without relevant upstream tracking. This consequence is associated more directly with VRRP uplink tracking and priority decrement. For the stated conditions the immediate exposure is: A broad PBR match may reroute critical unrelated flows and bypass intended segmentation.

Correlate BFD and VRRP events with actual packet captures, route tables and application checks. This check would diagnose Redundancy failover path verification, but would not first isolate the described Policy-based routing for approved application. Begin with: Inspect PBR classifier, interface direction, policy hits and a traffic trace.

Compare received candidate paths, LOCAL_PREF values, route policy and installed best path. This check would diagnose BGP local preference internal egress, but would not first isolate the described Policy-based routing for approved application. Begin with: Inspect PBR classifier, interface direction, policy hits and a traffic trace.

Inspect matching rule, applied attributes, selected route and resolved FIB next hop. This check would diagnose Route-policy next-hop and preference application, but would not first isolate the described Policy-based routing for approved application. Begin with: Inspect PBR classifier, interface direction, policy hits and a traffic trace.

Bind the supported BGP session to the intended loopback update source and ensure transport reachability. This is a legitimate response to the different issue of Loopback-based iBGP update source, but it does not correct the specific Policy-based routing for approved application condition reported. The relevant technical distinction is: Policy-based routing can select forwarding based on packet attributes before conventional destination routing.

Bind the correct MQC classifier, behavior, and traffic-policy in the intended interface direction. This is a legitimate response to the different issue of MQC classifier and behavior association, but it does not correct the specific Policy-based routing for approved application condition reported. The relevant technical distinction is: Policy-based routing can select forwarding based on packet attributes before conventional destination routing.

Add supported PBR next-hop reachability tracking or failover logic consistent with service requirements. This is a legitimate response to the different issue of PBR failed-next-hop fallback, but it does not correct the specific Policy-based routing for approved application condition reported. The relevant technical distinction is: Policy-based routing can select forwarding based on packet attributes before conventional destination routing.

A simulated forward-path failure brings BFD Down and triggers the documented alternate path promptly. That observation would support a separate case of BFD fast failure detection tied to route, not verification of the reported Policy-based routing for approved application. The relevant observable outcome here is: Only the approved source/application flows follow the private WAN while nonmatching traffic uses normal routing.

The loopback-sourced BGP session remains Established across the designated physical uplink change. That observation would support a separate case of Loopback-based iBGP update source, not verification of the reported Policy-based routing for approved application. The relevant observable outcome here is: Only the approved source/application flows follow the private WAN while nonmatching traffic uses normal routing.

Tagged management prefixes follow the intended permit/deny outcome without affecting unrelated production routes. That observation would support a separate case of BGP community filtering in routing control, not verification of the reported Policy-based routing for approved application. The relevant observable outcome here is: Only the approved source/application flows follow the private WAN while nonmatching traffic uses normal routing.

BGP best-path and route installation require reachable NEXT_HOP; iBGP advertising does not always rewrite it. This explains iBGP next-hop reachability, but not why the issue in this scenario occurs. The specific mechanism is: Policy-based routing can select forwarding based on packet attributes before conventional destination routing.

Huawei MQC separates class identification, traffic behavior and applied traffic-policy binding. This explains MQC classifier and behavior association, but not why the issue in this scenario occurs. The specific mechanism is: Policy-based routing can select forwarding based on packet attributes before conventional destination routing.

Route tags support identifying redistributed route origin and suppressing feedback across policy boundaries. This explains Redistribution route tag loop avoidance, but not why the issue in this scenario occurs. The specific mechanism is: Policy-based routing can select forwarding based on packet attributes before conventional destination routing.

Misordered or misplaced ACLs can allow forbidden flows or deny legitimate services. This consequence is associated more directly with ACL packet filter rule order and direction. For the stated conditions the immediate exposure is: A broad PBR match may reroute critical unrelated flows and bypass intended segmentation.

Misdiagnosing normal 2-Way state can lead to disruptive election and network-type changes. This consequence is associated more directly with Broadcast OSPF DR and BDR election. For the stated conditions the immediate exposure is: A broad PBR match may reroute critical unrelated flows and bypass intended segmentation.

A BGP Established session alone does not prove EVPN address family exchange works. This consequence is associated more directly with MP-BGP address-family activation. For the stated conditions the immediate exposure is: A broad PBR match may reroute critical unrelated flows and bypass intended segmentation.

Check PBR next hop, track state, route resolution and tested failure behavior. This check would diagnose PBR failed-next-hop fallback, but would not first isolate the described Policy-based routing for approved application. Begin with: Inspect PBR classifier, interface direction, policy hits and a traffic trace.

Check VRRP preempt state and delay, recovered link stability and transition timestamps. This check would diagnose VRRP preemption maintenance behavior, but would not first isolate the described Policy-based routing for approved application. Begin with: Inspect PBR classifier, interface direction, policy hits and a traffic trace.

Inspect edge-port flags, BPDU-protection events, root changes and MAC-move logs. This check would diagnose RSTP edge-port BPDU protection, but would not first isolate the described Policy-based routing for approved application. Begin with: Inspect PBR classifier, interface direction, policy hits and a traffic trace.