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: 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.

That option concerns a separate design case: A campus wants deterministic STP roots but all switches retain default bridge priorities. The relevant control here is: Apply route filtering at intercampus boundaries to accept only explicitly authorized prefixes.

That option concerns a separate design case: A building has two independent distribution switches but hosts use the physical IP of one switch as their default gateway. The relevant control here is: Apply route filtering at intercampus boundaries to accept only explicitly authorized prefixes.

That option concerns a separate design case: A campus topology places critical services behind one regional core switch despite redundant uplinks elsewhere. The relevant control here is: Apply route filtering at intercampus boundaries to accept only explicitly authorized prefixes.

That option concerns a separate design case: A manufacturing WAN requires multicast distribution but the SD-WAN overlay has only validated unicast OMP reachability. The relevant control here is: Plan scalable overlay topology and path policy based on actual edge session, route and encryption resource limits.

That option concerns a separate design case: A network team manually builds static IPsec tunnels between every SD-WAN edge even though centralized overlay policy is available. The relevant control here is: Plan scalable overlay topology and path policy based on actual edge session, route and encryption resource limits.

That option concerns a separate design case: A lab requires a routed overlay carrying multicast between sites but encryption is not part of the GRE service itself. The relevant control here is: Plan scalable overlay topology and path policy based on actual edge session, route and encryption resource limits.

That option concerns a separate design case: The RPF interface changes after a unicast route failover, but the multicast router retains stale upstream join state. The relevant control here is: Compare IntServ reservation scalability with a DiffServ class-based design that better matches the enterprise scale.

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: Compare IntServ reservation scalability with a DiffServ class-based design that better matches the enterprise scale.

That option concerns a separate design case: A core router's production data plane fails, leaving SSH reachable only through the same failed core path. The relevant control here is: Compare IntServ reservation scalability with a DiffServ class-based design that better matches the enterprise scale.

That option concerns a separate design case: An NOC polls every router with SNMP once every ten minutes and misses 30-second interface utilization spikes. The relevant control here is: Use supported on-change telemetry for the interface state leaf where device and model support it.

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: Use supported on-change telemetry for the interface state leaf where device and model support it.

This offered choice, “Prefer a supported OpenConfig model for common telemetry and document device-specific augmentations where unavoidable”, addresses a separate concern. That option relates to this separate design case: A multivendor enterprise wants one consistent YANG representation for interface operational counters but each platform exposes vendor-specific native trees. It does not answer the current requirement.

That option concerns a separate design case: A wireless access-point refresh increases PoE needs above the available 802.3at class on older switches. The relevant control here is: Evaluate a supported SDA transit that preserves virtual network and SGT policy semantics between sites.

That option concerns a separate design case: A routed-access campus needs equal-cost forwarding to two distribution routers while keeping each VLAN local to one wiring closet. The relevant control here is: Evaluate a supported SDA transit that preserves virtual network and SGT policy semantics between sites.

That option concerns a separate design case: A fabric site needs a guest wireless SSID without extending the guest Layer 2 domain across the whole enterprise. The relevant control here is: Evaluate a supported SDA transit that preserves virtual network and SGT policy semantics between sites.

That option concerns a separate design case: A company accepts routes from a newly merged BGP AS without maximum-prefix limits, and the peer mistakenly sends hundreds of thousands of prefixes. The relevant control here is: Activate and filter the correct IPv6 unicast MP-BGP address family on the intended peers.

That option concerns a separate design case: A campus plans IPv6 addressing with one /64 shared between two routed VLAN interfaces in different buildings. The relevant control here is: Activate and filter the correct IPv6 unicast MP-BGP address family on the intended peers.

That option concerns a separate design case: A company wants to expose IPv6 resources to a partner with IPv4-only routing and assumes dual stack at headquarters solves the partner boundary. The relevant control here is: Activate and filter the correct IPv6 unicast MP-BGP address family on the intended peers.

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: Evaluate bidirectional PIM for appropriate many-to-many traffic patterns and RP placement.

That option concerns a separate design case: A team expects multicast traffic to traverse a shared tree forever even though its design requests shortest-path switching. The relevant control here is: Evaluate bidirectional PIM for appropriate many-to-many traffic patterns and RP placement.

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: Evaluate bidirectional PIM for appropriate many-to-many traffic patterns and RP placement.

That option concerns a separate design case: A customer needs private route separation for 12 branches over a shared provider backbone, not a single Ethernet broadcast domain. The relevant control here is: Evaluate an appropriately isolated L2VPN or pseudowire with defined loop, bandwidth and MTU constraints.

That option concerns a separate design case: A financial organization leases a transparent point-to-point Ethernet service but requires independent routing at each site. The relevant control here is: Evaluate an appropriately isolated L2VPN or pseudowire with defined loop, bandwidth and MTU constraints.

That option concerns a separate design case: A small branch must use both Internet and private MPLS, and engineers assume the two underlays cannot coexist on one SD-WAN edge. The relevant control here is: Evaluate an appropriately isolated L2VPN or pseudowire with defined loop, bandwidth and MTU constraints.

That option concerns a separate design case: A fabric site needs a guest wireless SSID without extending the guest Layer 2 domain across the whole enterprise. The relevant control here is: Evaluate an appropriate VLAN access map or supported intra-segment security mechanism.

That option concerns a separate design case: A branch router redistributes a static default to the campus IGP without approval, causing arbitrary sites to shift egress. The relevant control here is: Evaluate an appropriate VLAN access map or supported intra-segment security mechanism.

That option concerns a separate design case: An acquisition introduces 172.16.0.0/12 internal networks but the network must hide finance VLAN prefixes from the partner site. The relevant control here is: Evaluate an appropriate VLAN access map or supported intra-segment security mechanism.

That option concerns a separate design case: A campus advertises a /18 summary into the WAN but has no route for one constituent /24 after a building is decommissioned. The relevant control here is: Filter or scope external default advertisements to the authorized EIGRP distribution boundaries.

That option concerns a separate design case: An EIGRP deployment relies on a single aggregation router and an outage cuts off all downstream branches. The relevant control here is: Filter or scope external default advertisements to the authorized EIGRP distribution boundaries.

That option concerns a separate design case: A branch EIGRP router advertises remote routes back into its hub and occasionally becomes a transit path between hubs. The relevant control here is: Filter or scope external default advertisements to the authorized EIGRP distribution boundaries.