Cisco 300-420 Exam Dumps, Practice Test Questions

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: Tune BFD intervals and session scale to supported hardware and realistic detection requirements.

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: Tune BFD intervals and session scale to supported hardware and realistic detection requirements.

That option concerns a separate design case: HSRP gateways remain reachable locally after their active router loses the only routed upstream uplink. The relevant control here is: Tune BFD intervals and session scale to supported hardware and realistic detection requirements.

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: Align the intended EIGRP AS and verify the relevant interface network and authentication settings.

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: Align the intended EIGRP AS and verify the relevant interface network and authentication settings.

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: Align the intended EIGRP AS and verify the relevant interface network and authentication settings.

That option concerns a separate design case: A low-bandwidth remote management VPN carries huge nightly backup transfers that prevent emergency SSH access. The relevant control here is: Evaluate supported MSDP-based source active exchange or a modern supported interdomain design.

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 supported MSDP-based source active exchange or a modern supported interdomain design.

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: Evaluate supported MSDP-based source active exchange or a modern supported interdomain design.

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: Choose a provider MPLS Layer 3 VPN with appropriate VRF route-target isolation and customer-to-provider routing.

That option concerns a separate design case: Two industrial sites require transparent delivery of a small set of Ethernet services and reject routing between their private LANs. The relevant control here is: Choose a provider MPLS Layer 3 VPN with appropriate VRF route-target isolation and customer-to-provider routing.

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: Choose a provider MPLS Layer 3 VPN with appropriate VRF route-target isolation and customer-to-provider routing.

That option concerns a separate design case: A security operations service needs authoritative interface state changes, not a dashboard that replays stale telemetry after collector failure. The relevant control here is: Classify the offering as IaaS and document customer responsibilities for guest OS, identities and workloads.

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: Classify the offering as IaaS and document customer responsibilities for guest OS, identities and workloads.

That option concerns a separate design case: A controller issues RESTCONF PATCH to many routers but treats HTTP 200 from a reverse proxy login page as proof that config was changed. The relevant control here is: Classify the offering as IaaS and document customer responsibilities for guest OS, identities and workloads.

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: Explicitly control default route origination and conditional advertisements at authorized borders.

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: Explicitly control default route origination and conditional advertisements at authorized borders.

That option concerns a separate design case: Branch-specific prefix updates flood every campus router; a proposed aggregate crosses two distinct WAN egress sites. The relevant control here is: Explicitly control default route origination and conditional advertisements at authorized borders.

That option concerns a separate design case: The IS-IS backbone has a router in overload state after reboot and operators mistake it for an ordinary forwarding transit. The relevant control here is: Use appropriate convergence design, link health remediation, and scoped metric or fast-failure detection without masking a physical fault.

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: Use appropriate convergence design, link health remediation, and scoped metric or fast-failure detection without masking a physical fault.

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: Use appropriate convergence design, link health remediation, and scoped metric or fast-failure detection without masking a physical fault.

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: Verify correct Reverse Path Forwarding behavior and IGP unicast route alignment for multicast sources.

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: Verify correct Reverse Path Forwarding behavior and IGP unicast route alignment for multicast sources.

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: Verify correct Reverse Path Forwarding behavior and IGP unicast route alignment for multicast sources.

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: Validate backup access, overlay establishment and route activation under simulated primary loss.

That option concerns a separate design case: A disaster-recovery branch depends on a 5G uplink as backup for wired MPLS, but cellular coverage varies by carrier and power failure. The relevant control here is: Validate backup access, overlay establishment and route activation under simulated primary loss.

That option concerns a separate design case: Several data centers need high-capacity optical transport over metropolitan dark fiber without converting each tenant VLAN to an IP tunnel. The relevant control here is: Validate backup access, overlay establishment and route activation under simulated primary loss.

That option concerns a separate design case: An IS-IS backbone suffers topology oscillation because a marginal core link repeatedly flaps. The relevant control here is: Keep /127 point-to-point addressing for supported router links and use separate /64 allocations for conventional endpoint segments.

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: Keep /127 point-to-point addressing for supported router links and use separate /64 allocations for conventional endpoint segments.

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: Keep /127 point-to-point addressing for supported router links and use separate /64 allocations for conventional endpoint segments.

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 primary and secondary STP root roles at the appropriate distribution devices for the planned VLAN sets.

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: Place primary and secondary STP root roles at the appropriate distribution devices for the planned VLAN sets.

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: Place primary and secondary STP root roles at the appropriate distribution devices for the planned VLAN sets.