Cisco 300-420 Exam Dumps, Practice Test Questions

That hazard relates to another condition: A provider delegation contains 2001:db8:4200::/48 and the design requires 256 independent /64 LANs across 16 branches. It is not the direct risk evidenced by this case.

That hazard arises in a separate case: A company wants most return traffic for its public prefix to enter ISP B rather than ISP A. It is not the failure mode evidenced here.

That hazard arises in a separate case: An enterprise uses hundreds of IPv4 /24s and proposes a single /16 summary although several component /24s are outside its administrative control. It is not the failure mode evidenced here.

That hazard arises in a separate case: Two tenants use 10.0.0.0/8 addressing and share the same campus core but require separate routing and firewall policies. It is not the failure mode evidenced here.

That hazard arises in a separate case: A campus wants deterministic STP roots but all switches retain default bridge priorities. It is not the failure mode evidenced here.

That hazard arises in a separate case: A campus topology places critical services behind one regional core switch despite redundant uplinks elsewhere. It is not the failure mode evidenced here.

That hazard arises in a separate case: An SD-WAN fabric routes guest traffic into the production VPN because a new edge reused the corporate service VPN identifier. It is not the failure mode evidenced here.

That hazard arises in a separate case: A network team manually builds static IPsec tunnels between every SD-WAN edge even though centralized overlay policy is available. It is not the failure mode evidenced here.

That hazard arises in a separate case: A manufacturing WAN requires multicast distribution but the SD-WAN overlay has only validated unicast OMP reachability. It is not the failure mode evidenced here.

That hazard arises in a separate case: A source sends multicast through one router but users join from another site and no multicast routing is configured between them. It is not the failure mode evidenced here.

That hazard arises in a separate case: The RPF interface changes after a unicast route failover, but the multicast router retains stale upstream join state. It is not the failure mode evidenced here.

That hazard arises in a separate case: A core router's production data plane fails, leaving SSH reachable only through the same failed core path. It is not the failure mode evidenced here.

That hazard arises in a separate case: A security operations service needs authoritative interface state changes, not a dashboard that replays stale telemetry after collector failure. It is not the failure mode evidenced here.

That hazard arises in a separate 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. It is not the failure mode evidenced here.

That hazard arises in a separate case: A standards group needs an interoperable interface model but mistakenly calls every IETF YANG module an OpenConfig model. It is not the failure mode evidenced here.

That hazard arises in a separate case: A routed-access campus needs equal-cost forwarding to two distribution routers while keeping each VLAN local to one wiring closet. It is not the failure mode evidenced here.

That hazard arises in a separate case: A financial application needs multicast delivery across SDA sites, but all validation has covered unicast endpoint maps only. It is not the failure mode evidenced here.

That hazard arises in a separate case: A fabric site needs a guest wireless SSID without extending the guest Layer 2 domain across the whole enterprise. It is not the failure mode evidenced here.

That hazard arises in a separate case: A campus plans IPv6 addressing with one /64 shared between two routed VLAN interfaces in different buildings. It is not the failure mode evidenced here.

That hazard arises in a separate 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. It is not the failure mode evidenced here.

That hazard arises in a separate 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. It is not the failure mode evidenced here.

That hazard arises in a separate case: A new multicast source uses group 232.1.1.1 but the client sends only (*,G) membership instead of a source-specific join. It is not the failure mode evidenced here.

That hazard arises in a separate case: A team expects multicast traffic to traverse a shared tree forever even though its design requests shortest-path switching. It is not the failure mode evidenced here.

That hazard arises in a separate case: A campus firewall isolates management VRFs but its shared-services route leaking exports all loopbacks to the guest VRF. It is not the failure mode evidenced here.

That hazard arises in a separate case: A financial organization leases a transparent point-to-point Ethernet service but requires independent routing at each site. It is not the failure mode evidenced here.

That hazard arises in a separate case: A small branch must use both Internet and private MPLS, and engineers assume the two underlays cannot coexist on one SD-WAN edge. It is not the failure mode evidenced here.

That hazard arises in a separate case: Two enterprise buildings use separate Metro Ethernet UNI ports, yet their operators assume the provider will preserve any configured customer VLAN ID. It is not the failure mode evidenced here.

That hazard arises in a separate case: A branch router redistributes a static default to the campus IGP without approval, causing arbitrary sites to shift egress. It is not the failure mode evidenced here.

That hazard arises in a separate case: A new MST campus region accidentally has a different VLAN-to-instance mapping on one distribution switch. It is not the failure mode evidenced here.

That hazard arises in a separate case: A fabric site needs a guest wireless SSID without extending the guest Layer 2 domain across the whole enterprise. It is not the failure mode evidenced here.

That hazard arises in a separate case: A branch EIGRP router advertises remote routes back into its hub and occasionally becomes a transit path between hubs. It is not the failure mode evidenced here.

That hazard arises in a separate case: A campus advertises a /18 summary into the WAN but has no route for one constituent /24 after a building is decommissioned. It is not the failure mode evidenced here.

This offered choice, “Overlapping site prefixes can cause ambiguous reachability and route leaks between branches”, addresses a separate concern. That option relates to this separate design case: A retailer adds 70 branches and reused 10.20.0.0/16 at several sites; the MPLS provider cannot distinguish the overlapping prefixes in the enterprise routing table. It does not answer the current requirement.