Cisco 300-420 Exam Dumps, Practice Test Questions

This alternative is aimed at a different design constraint: A provider delegation contains 2001:db8:4200::/48 and the design requires 256 independent /64 LANs across 16 branches. The relevant control for this case is: Assign and verify cluster identifiers that match the actual reflection topology and check route path attributes.

That option concerns a separate design case: A campus OSPF area 0 is split into disconnected islands connected only by another area; route distribution is unstable. The relevant control here is: Assign and verify cluster identifiers that match the actual reflection topology and check route path attributes.

That option concerns a separate design case: A data-center team assigns the same loopback IPv4 address to two route reflectors for convenience but also uses it as unique BGP router identifiers. The relevant control here is: Assign and verify cluster identifiers that match the actual reflection topology and check route path attributes.

That option concerns a separate design case: A customer rents virtual machines from a provider and must patch their operating systems, but procurement classifies the service as SaaS. The relevant control here is: Validate authenticated RESTCONF resource responses and follow-up model reads, not merely transport-level success.

That option concerns a separate design case: An automation team expects NETCONF transactions over SSH to behave like stateless HTTP GET calls with no session or lock semantics. The relevant control here is: Validate authenticated RESTCONF resource responses and follow-up model reads, not merely transport-level success.

That option concerns a separate design case: A monitoring team tries to exchange gNMI Get and Subscribe messages with a device that only exposes ordinary HTTP REST endpoints. The relevant control here is: Validate authenticated RESTCONF resource responses and follow-up model reads, not merely transport-level success.

That option concerns a separate design case: Backup 5G is installed at a factory but its data plan and APN firewall rules block VPN establishment after primary fiber failure. The relevant control here is: Design cellular failover with independent carrier coverage, external antenna and power constraints, plus validated routing.

That option concerns a separate design case: A branch has broadband backup with no QoS controls and a voice service drops under failover saturation. The relevant control here is: Design cellular failover with independent carrier coverage, external antenna and power constraints, plus validated routing.

That option concerns a separate design case: A dual-carrier WAN design changes to backup but automatically switches back on every momentary primary heartbeat recovery. The relevant control here is: Design cellular failover with independent carrier coverage, external antenna and power constraints, plus validated routing.

That option concerns a separate design case: A campus access layer spans large broadcast domains for print discovery despite an architecture target of small local VLANs. The relevant control here is: Bound Layer 2 fault domains and use routed access or smaller STP regions where application requirements permit.

That option concerns a separate design case: A design extends SDA fabric across buildings on a WAN with 1500-byte MTU and assumes local campus performance will continue unchanged. The relevant control here is: Bound Layer 2 fault domains and use routed access or smaller STP regions where application requirements permit.

That option concerns a separate design case: A campus with several hundred VLANs uses one active HSRP gateway for all VLANs while another distribution router remains mostly idle. The relevant control here is: Bound Layer 2 fault domains and use routed access or smaller STP regions where application requirements permit.

That option concerns a separate design case: A many-to-many trading network has multiple multicast senders and a scalable shared-tree forwarding requirement. The relevant control here is: Give reporting and change tools separate scoped management identities, roles, and network paths.

That option concerns a separate design case: Network management of a branch uses a VPN over its sole primary WAN, and the organization reports no way to diagnose a provider outage. The relevant control here is: Give reporting and change tools separate scoped management identities, roles, and network paths.

That option concerns a separate design case: Two business units share one management VLAN with unrestricted access to each other's routers. The relevant control here is: Give reporting and change tools separate scoped management identities, roles, and network paths.

That option concerns a separate design case: A remote branch uses an OSPF stub area but a design change introduces an ASBR that must redistribute external routes within it. The relevant control here is: Define controlled redistribution policy, route tags, and appropriate metric type to avoid redundant uncontrolled advertisements.

That option concerns a separate design case: Branches summarize their local EIGRP networks at a hub-facing boundary, but a detached subnet is included in the summary. The relevant control here is: Define controlled redistribution policy, route tags, and appropriate metric type to avoid redundant uncontrolled advertisements.

That option concerns a separate design case: A campus OSPF area 0 is split into disconnected islands connected only by another area; route distribution is unstable. The relevant control here is: Define controlled redistribution policy, route tags, and appropriate metric type to avoid redundant uncontrolled advertisements.

That option concerns a separate design case: In a planned SD-Access fabric, border nodes can reach edge loopbacks but endpoints fail because the team placed user subnets into the underlay instead of overlay VRFs. The relevant control here is: Confirm supported hardware, management credentials, fabric role, underlay and automation workflow prerequisites.

That option concerns a separate design case: Fabric edge nodes encapsulate packets, but the underlay path MTU is too small for added VXLAN overhead. The relevant control here is: Confirm supported hardware, management credentials, fabric role, underlay and automation workflow prerequisites.

That option concerns a separate design case: Users roam between wired fabric edge switches but their identity assignments change with switch port, breaking microsegmentation. The relevant control here is: Confirm supported hardware, management credentials, fabric role, underlay and automation workflow prerequisites.

That option concerns a separate design case: Remote branch routers are managed using the same public internet IP address that exposes a user web service. The relevant control here is: Negotiate supported carrier class-of-service and align enterprise markings to the actual WAN service contract.

That option concerns a separate design case: A QoS controller marks all backup data DSCP AF41 while the provider honors it as a premium video class. The relevant control here is: Negotiate supported carrier class-of-service and align enterprise markings to the actual WAN service contract.

That option concerns a separate design case: A WAN provider accepts only three traffic classes but headquarters configures eight local DSCP queues and assumes all survive the handoff. The relevant control here is: Negotiate supported carrier class-of-service and align enterprise markings to the actual WAN service contract.

That option concerns a separate design case: A bank contracts two MPLS providers but both fiber tails enter the building through the same conduit. The relevant control here is: Design multihoming with explicit path symmetry or state-sharing controls and validate both directions.

That option concerns a separate design case: Backup 5G is installed at a factory but its data plan and APN firewall rules block VPN establishment after primary fiber failure. The relevant control here is: Design multihoming with explicit path symmetry or state-sharing controls and validate both directions.

That option concerns a separate design case: Two enterprise buildings use separate Metro Ethernet UNI ports, yet their operators assume the provider will preserve any configured customer VLAN ID. The relevant control here is: Design multihoming with explicit path symmetry or state-sharing controls and validate both directions.

That option concerns a separate design case: Two access switches uplink to a distribution pair; the architecture stretches one port channel across chassis without verifying multi-chassis support. The relevant control here is: Trust only legitimate DHCP server/uplink paths and keep edge client ports untrusted.

That option concerns a separate design case: A remote campus uses two distribution switches and requires nonstop gateway access during a planned supervisor replacement. The relevant control here is: Trust only legitimate DHCP server/uplink paths and keep edge client ports untrusted.

That option concerns a separate design case: An access switch's BPDU Guard disables a legitimate downstream bridge, and the network team proposes disabling Guard on every port. The relevant control here is: Trust only legitimate DHCP server/uplink paths and keep edge client ports untrusted.