Cisco 300-420 Exam Dumps, Practice Test Questions

That option concerns a separate design case: An iBGP route reflector sees several candidate routes to the same destination but advertises only its best path to clients. The relevant control here is: Configure an appropriate EIGRP stub design on the branch while allowing its locally connected routes to reach the hubs.

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: Configure an appropriate EIGRP stub design on the branch while allowing its locally connected routes to reach the hubs.

That option concerns a separate design case: An EIGRP core has routes stuck active after one WAN path fails and queries spread into many remote sites. The relevant control here is: Configure an appropriate EIGRP stub design on the branch while allowing its locally connected routes to reach the hubs.

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: Align advertised costs and path policy with available bandwidth and acceptable backup behavior.

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: Align advertised costs and path policy with available bandwidth and acceptable backup behavior.

That option concerns a separate design case: A site cutover retains a withdrawn /24 under an unchanged /20 campus summary and traffic follows an obsolete transit path. The relevant control here is: Align advertised costs and path policy with available bandwidth and acceptable backup behavior.

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: Evaluate BFD and appropriate OSPF timers with a realistic detection budget and hardware scale.

That option concerns a separate design case: IS-IS adjacencies form between distribution switches, but all internal prefixes are redistributed from OSPF without loop prevention. The relevant control here is: Evaluate BFD and appropriate OSPF timers with a realistic detection budget and hardware scale.

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: Evaluate BFD and appropriate OSPF timers with a realistic detection budget and hardware scale.

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: Separate management access into a restricted VRF, VPN, or protected OOB context with explicit source policy.

That option concerns a separate design case: Two independent PIM-SM domains each use local rendezvous points but remote sources must be discovered across the domains. The relevant control here is: Separate management access into a restricted VRF, VPN, or protected OOB context with explicit source policy.

That option concerns a separate design case: A network architect assumes assigning DSCP CS6 to user browsing guarantees faster internet service from a provider that resets all DSCP. The relevant control here is: Separate management access into a restricted VRF, VPN, or protected OOB context with explicit source 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: Classify the hosted runtime as PaaS and document the application versus platform operations boundary.

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: Classify the hosted runtime as PaaS and document the application versus platform operations boundary.

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: Classify the hosted runtime as PaaS and document the application versus platform operations boundary.

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: Choose a supported IPsec design with appropriate IKE authentication, encryption proposals and key rotation.

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: Choose a supported IPsec design with appropriate IKE authentication, encryption proposals and key rotation.

That option concerns a separate design case: A voice application has a 120-ms latency budget, but SD-WAN traffic follows the cheapest internet path despite BFD reporting 220-ms delay. The relevant control here is: Choose a supported IPsec design with appropriate IKE authentication, encryption proposals and key rotation.

That option concerns a separate design case: An OSPF deployment puts all 600 remote access switches into area 0 and floods changes to every site. The relevant control here is: Evaluate a suitable NAT64/DNS64 or application-proxy boundary with supported protocol assumptions.

That option concerns a separate design case: An OSPF redistribution boundary introduces the same connected subnet from two ASBRs, resulting in inconsistent egress selection. The relevant control here is: Evaluate a suitable NAT64/DNS64 or application-proxy boundary with supported protocol assumptions.

That option concerns a separate design case: A branch enables IPv6 DNS records before adding IPv6 firewall rules and users bypass legacy IPv4 access controls. The relevant control here is: Evaluate a suitable NAT64/DNS64 or application-proxy boundary with supported protocol assumptions.

That option concerns a separate design case: A fabric control-plane node becomes unavailable and endpoint mobility updates stop at one campus site. The relevant control here is: Place route summarization at contiguous ownership boundaries and preserve specific exceptions needed for proper egress.

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: Place route summarization at contiguous ownership boundaries and preserve specific exceptions needed for proper egress.

That option concerns a separate design case: Three campus sites peer with a shared WAN hub; every site transits through the hub even for cross-campus traffic and voice suffers latency. The relevant control here is: Place route summarization at contiguous ownership boundaries and preserve specific exceptions needed for proper egress.

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: Separate service VPNs/segments and apply centralized policy matching approved guest and corporate destinations.

That option concerns a separate design case: A new SD-WAN site has a single edge appliance and single underlay yet is approved as redundant because controllers run in different data centers. The relevant control here is: Separate service VPNs/segments and apply centralized policy matching approved guest and corporate destinations.

That option concerns a separate design case: A new WAN edge receives a bootstrap but its control connections fail because the certificate trust chain and organization name differ. The relevant control here is: Separate service VPNs/segments and apply centralized policy matching approved guest and corporate destinations.

That option concerns a separate design case: A network architect assumes assigning DSCP CS6 to user browsing guarantees faster internet service from a provider that resets all DSCP. The relevant control here is: Map internal DSCP classes onto the provider-supported service groups explicitly and consistently.

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: Map internal DSCP classes onto the provider-supported service groups explicitly and consistently.

That option concerns a separate design case: An enterprise WAN receives DSCP values from untrusted guest clients and propagates them unchanged into privileged queues. The relevant control here is: Map internal DSCP classes onto the provider-supported service groups explicitly and consistently.

That option concerns a separate design case: An edge router receives a full BGP table where the security policy allows only the provider's approved default. The relevant control here is: Use an appropriate local-preference policy inside the enterprise AS to set outbound exit preference.

That option concerns a separate design case: A new IPv6-only client subnet must access a legacy IPv4-only web endpoint through an enterprise gateway. The relevant control here is: Use an appropriate local-preference policy inside the enterprise AS to set outbound exit preference.

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: Use an appropriate local-preference policy inside the enterprise AS to set outbound exit preference.