Cisco 300-420 Exam Dumps, Practice Test Questions

That option concerns a separate design case: An attacker plugs an unmanaged switch into a lobby edge port and advertises superior STP BPDUs, changing the root topology. The relevant control here is: Apply a supported edge/PortFast designation only to validated endpoint-facing interfaces.

That option concerns a separate design case: A routed campus uses DHCP snooping on access switches but marks every endpoint port trusted for convenience. The relevant control here is: Apply a supported edge/PortFast designation only to validated endpoint-facing interfaces.

That option concerns a separate design case: IP phones and cameras are scheduled for a new closet, but PoE budget is calculated only from the switch's total port count. The relevant control here is: Apply a supported edge/PortFast designation only to validated endpoint-facing interfaces.

That option concerns a separate design case: A new multicast source uses group 232.1.1.1 but the client sends only (*,G) membership instead of a source-specific join. The relevant control here is: Validate reconvergence of multicast RPF and join/prune state after unicast routing changes.

That option concerns a separate design case: A source sends multicast through one router but users join from another site and no multicast routing is configured between them. The relevant control here is: Validate reconvergence of multicast RPF and join/prune state after unicast routing changes.

That option concerns a separate design case: A multicast source is reachable through an interface other than the one receiving the packet, but the router still forwards it to all receivers. The relevant control here is: Validate reconvergence of multicast RPF and join/prune state after unicast routing changes.

That option concerns a separate design case: A router receives two EIGRP routes for a prefix with different metrics and the design team wants deterministic failover. The relevant control here is: Apply route filtering and appropriate max-prefix safeguards proportional to approved expected routes.

That option concerns a separate design case: A company wants most return traffic for its public prefix to enter ISP B rather than ISP A. The relevant control here is: Apply route filtering and appropriate max-prefix safeguards proportional to approved expected routes.

That option concerns a separate design case: A dual-stack enterprise BGP peer exchanges IPv4 NLRI but no IPv6 routes despite IPv6 addressing on the transport. The relevant control here is: Apply route filtering and appropriate max-prefix safeguards proportional to approved expected routes.

That option concerns a separate design case: Branches will be migrated from static internet VPNs to SD-WAN customer edges but the design omits transport isolation and overlay security. The relevant control here is: Define SLA-aware application routing with measured loss, latency and jitter and intended tunnel fallback policy.

That option concerns a separate design case: A site-to-site tunnel must protect financial payload confidentiality and integrity across the public internet. The relevant control here is: Define SLA-aware application routing with measured loss, latency and jitter and intended tunnel fallback policy.

That option concerns a separate design case: A branch uses IPsec overlay on broadband with 1400-byte effective MTU, but an application sends 1500-byte DF-set packets and stalls. The relevant control here is: Define SLA-aware application routing with measured loss, latency and jitter and intended tunnel fallback policy.

That option concerns a separate design case: A standards group needs an interoperable interface model but mistakenly calls every IETF YANG module an OpenConfig model. The relevant control here is: Align gNMI encoding and model path interpretation with supported YANG JSON_IETF semantics.

That option concerns a separate design case: A routing telemetry client assumes every operational counter supports on-change updates and receives no updates on one platform. The relevant control here is: Align gNMI encoding and model path interpretation with supported YANG JSON_IETF semantics.

That option concerns a separate design case: A global WAN telemetry system publishes a complete 10,000-interface snapshot every 100 ms although the target is only five-minute capacity planning. The relevant control here is: Align gNMI encoding and model path interpretation with supported YANG JSON_IETF semantics.

That option concerns a separate design case: A regional core accepts all branch routes and one lab site leaks its test 0.0.0.0/0 default into the global table. The relevant control here is: Separate service attachment across independent core fault domains and validate downstream convergence.

That option concerns a separate design case: Multiple access switches connect to one distribution block through independent Layer 2 uplinks with a blocked redundant path. The relevant control here is: Separate service attachment across independent core fault domains and validate downstream convergence.

That option concerns a separate design case: A campus design requires both distribution uplinks active but the chosen topology uses classic STP on all Layer 2 connections. The relevant control here is: Separate service attachment across independent core fault domains and validate downstream convergence.

That option concerns a separate design case: A remote office assigns clients addresses from 169.254.0.0/16 and expects them to be reachable through a routed WAN. The relevant control here is: Assign distinct /64 prefixes per routed IPv6 segment from a hierarchical site allocation.

That option concerns a separate design case: A dual-stack enterprise BGP peer exchanges IPv4 NLRI but no IPv6 routes despite IPv6 addressing on the transport. The relevant control here is: Assign distinct /64 prefixes per routed IPv6 segment from a hierarchical site allocation.

That option concerns a separate design case: A security design requires authenticating OSPF control packets on shared routed links, but only one neighbor has authentication enabled. The relevant control here is: Assign distinct /64 prefixes per routed IPv6 segment from a hierarchical site allocation.

That option concerns a separate design case: A routed campus uses DHCP snooping on access switches but marks every endpoint port trusted for convenience. The relevant control here is: Use a validated stack/virtual chassis/MEC design or independent routed uplinks according to supported platform capabilities.

That option concerns a separate design case: A virtualized distribution pair uses one logical control plane and engineers assume it offers separate failure domains like two chassis in different buildings. The relevant control here is: Use a validated stack/virtual chassis/MEC design or independent routed uplinks according to supported platform capabilities.

That option concerns a separate design case: A distribution pair advertises the same summary at two locations, but one has a 100-Mbps backhaul and receives half of campus traffic. The relevant control here is: Use a validated stack/virtual chassis/MEC design or independent routed uplinks according to supported platform capabilities.

That option concerns a separate design case: A new multicast source uses group 232.1.1.1 but the client sends only (*,G) membership instead of a source-specific join. The relevant control here is: Establish supported PIM routing with unicast RPF reachability and correct receiver membership signaling.

That option concerns a separate design case: A multicast source is reachable through an interface other than the one receiving the packet, but the router still forwards it to all receivers. The relevant control here is: Establish supported PIM routing with unicast RPF reachability and correct receiver membership signaling.

This offered choice, “Combine trusted traffic classification and marking with a suitable egress priority queue and bandwidth admission design”, addresses a separate concern. That option relates to this separate design case: A regional WAN prioritizes voice using a DiffServ marking but provides no scheduler preference on its congested egress link. It does not answer the current requirement.

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: Match WAN redundancy and repair targets to measured business availability needs and budget.

That option concerns a separate design case: An industrial site uses 4G LTE as primary WAN, and its routing team assumes public inbound addresses remain reachable through carrier-grade NAT. The relevant control here is: Match WAN redundancy and repair targets to measured business availability needs and budget.

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: Match WAN redundancy and repair targets to measured business availability needs and budget.

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: Select a scalable IPv6-capable routing design with convergence and security matched to the enterprise topology.

That option concerns a separate design case: A company wants most return traffic for its public prefix to enter ISP B rather than ISP A. The relevant control here is: Select a scalable IPv6-capable routing design with convergence and security matched to the enterprise topology.

That option concerns a separate design case: An enterprise uses hundreds of IPv4 /24s and proposes a single /16 summary although several component /24s are outside its administrative control. The relevant control here is: Select a scalable IPv6-capable routing design with convergence and security matched to the enterprise topology.