Cisco 300-420 Exam Dumps, Practice Test Questions

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.

That option concerns a separate design case: A Python network tool must update structured interface configuration through web-style requests but the engineer chooses CLI scraping instead of a supported API. The relevant control here is: Prefer a supported OpenConfig model for common telemetry and document device-specific augmentations where unavoidable.

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: Prefer a supported OpenConfig model for common telemetry and document device-specific augmentations where unavoidable.

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: Prefer a supported OpenConfig model for common telemetry and document device-specific augmentations where unavoidable.

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: Design an appropriate first-hop redundancy protocol with a shared virtual gateway and verified uplink tracking.

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: Design an appropriate first-hop redundancy protocol with a shared virtual gateway and verified uplink tracking.

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: Design an appropriate first-hop redundancy protocol with a shared virtual gateway and verified uplink tracking.

That option concerns a separate design case: A network wants a hub-and-spoke topology for finance traffic but allows any-to-any policy for all service VPNs. The relevant control here is: Evaluate GET VPN where supported for group encryption over a trusted routable provider network.

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: Evaluate GET VPN where supported for group encryption over a trusted routable provider network.

That option concerns a separate design case: A regional healthcare group wants routed site separation within a provider-managed private WAN without building its own full mesh of tunnels. The relevant control here is: Evaluate GET VPN where supported for group encryption over a trusted routable provider network.

That option concerns a separate design case: An IPv6 deployment uses static gateways rather than a dynamic protocol across several redundant campus links. The relevant control here is: Advertise only summaries that fully cover owned reachable allocations; retain required exceptions or more-specifics at redistribution boundaries.

That option concerns a separate design case: Two OSPF neighbors on a routed core link are stuck in EXSTART/EXCHANGE and one endpoint uses an incompatible MTU. The relevant control here is: Advertise only summaries that fully cover owned reachable allocations; retain required exceptions or more-specifics at redistribution boundaries.

That option concerns a separate design case: A network uses IS-IS with dual distribution routers and wants predictable traffic away from a low-bandwidth backup path. The relevant control here is: Advertise only summaries that fully cover owned reachable allocations; retain required exceptions or more-specifics at redistribution boundaries.

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: Evaluate Source-Specific Multicast using supported IGMPv3/MLDv2 and PIM-SSM where available.

That option concerns a separate design case: An enterprise wants to expose a multicast stream to one receiver group but the original source uses a group address conflicting with a remote application. The relevant control here is: Evaluate Source-Specific Multicast using supported IGMPv3/MLDv2 and PIM-SSM where available.

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: Evaluate Source-Specific Multicast using supported IGMPv3/MLDv2 and PIM-SSM where available.

That option concerns a separate design case: An organization needs to reach an IPv6 island over a provider network that carries IPv4 only for the next year. The relevant control here is: Pair next-hop reachability and supported BFD or track-based detection with appropriate BGP convergence settings.

That option concerns a separate design case: A partner BGP session accidentally advertises a sensitive 10.0.0.0/8 internal route to an external ASN. The relevant control here is: Pair next-hop reachability and supported BFD or track-based detection with appropriate BGP convergence settings.

That option concerns a separate design case: A network uses IS-IS with dual distribution routers and wants predictable traffic away from a low-bandwidth backup path. The relevant control here is: Pair next-hop reachability and supported BFD or track-based detection with appropriate BGP convergence settings.

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: Choose a validated loop-free logical bundle or routed-access topology if active-active use is required.

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: Choose a validated loop-free logical bundle or routed-access topology if active-active use is required.

That option concerns a separate design case: A public safety campus requires independent operations from a corporate tenant even when both use the same distribution hardware. The relevant control here is: Choose a validated loop-free logical bundle or routed-access topology if active-active use is required.

That option concerns a separate design case: GET VPN group members can route between branches but new devices cannot obtain group security policy after a key-server loss. The relevant control here is: Include latency, jitter and loss thresholds appropriate to the application class.

That option concerns a separate design case: A network wants a hub-and-spoke topology for finance traffic but allows any-to-any policy for all service VPNs. The relevant control here is: Include latency, jitter and loss thresholds appropriate to the application class.

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: Include latency, jitter and loss thresholds appropriate to the application class.

That option concerns a separate design case: An enterprise edge allows a contracted 50-Mbps guest rate but users report voice degradation during microbursts despite the average staying under 50 Mbps. The relevant control here is: Size admission and queue bandwidth using packetization and encapsulation overhead plus concurrent-call estimates.

That option concerns a separate design case: A campus designs priority queues only on the access switch but ignores a congested upstream WAN edge. The relevant control here is: Size admission and queue bandwidth using packetization and encapsulation overhead plus concurrent-call estimates.

That option concerns a separate design case: A campus uses DSCP EF for voice signaling, voice media, and backup traffic, causing priority queue overload. The relevant control here is: Size admission and queue bandwidth using packetization and encapsulation overhead plus concurrent-call estimates.

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: Use explicit route tags, prefix filtering, and redistribution boundaries to block feedback loops.

That option concerns a separate design case: A BGP operator attempts to influence routes within one AS by changing the weight attribute only on one edge router. The relevant control here is: Use explicit route tags, prefix filtering, and redistribution boundaries to block feedback loops.

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: Use explicit route tags, prefix filtering, and redistribution boundaries to block feedback loops.