Cisco 300-420 Exam Dumps, Practice Test Questions

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.

That hazard arises in a separate case: A routing telemetry client assumes every operational counter supports on-change updates and receives no updates on one platform. It is not the failure mode evidenced here.

That hazard arises in a separate case: A Cisco-only controller needs platform-specific wireless policies that are not represented by the organization's standard OpenConfig model. 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: Users roam between wired fabric edge switches but their identity assignments change with switch port, breaking microsegmentation. It is not the failure mode evidenced here.

That hazard arises in a separate case: A remote campus uses two distribution switches and requires nonstop gateway access during a planned supervisor replacement. It is not the failure mode evidenced here.

That hazard arises in a separate case: Multiple access switches connect to one distribution block through independent Layer 2 uplinks with a blocked redundant path. It is not the failure mode evidenced here.

That hazard arises in a separate case: A branch uses IPsec overlay on broadband with 1400-byte effective MTU, but an application sends 1500-byte DF-set packets and stalls. 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 customer needs private route separation for 12 branches over a shared provider backbone, not a single Ethernet broadcast domain. It is not the failure mode evidenced here.

That hazard arises in a separate case: An EIGRP deployment relies on a single aggregation router and an outage cuts off all downstream branches. It is not the failure mode evidenced here.

That hazard arises in a separate case: An IPv6 deployment uses static gateways rather than a dynamic protocol across several redundant campus links. 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.

That hazard arises in a separate case: Two independent PIM-SM domains each use local rendezvous points but remote sources must be discovered across the domains. It is not the failure mode evidenced here.

That hazard arises in a separate case: Two business units share one management VLAN with unrestricted access to each other's routers. It is not the failure mode evidenced here.

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

That hazard arises in a separate case: A network uses IS-IS with dual distribution routers and wants predictable traffic away from a low-bandwidth backup path. It is not the failure mode evidenced here.

That hazard arises in a separate case: An organization needs to reach an IPv6 island over a provider network that carries IPv4 only for the next year. It is not the failure mode evidenced here.

That hazard arises in a separate case: A design team wants fast OSPF failure detection on long-running optical links without dropping stable adjacencies during occasional control-plane delay. It is not the failure mode evidenced here.

That hazard arises in a separate case: A remote campus uses two distribution switches and requires nonstop gateway access during a planned supervisor replacement. It is not the failure mode evidenced here.

That hazard arises in a separate case: Two access switches uplink to a distribution pair; the architecture stretches one port channel across chassis without verifying multi-chassis support. It is not the failure mode evidenced here.

That hazard arises in a separate case: A building has two independent distribution switches but hosts use the physical IP of one switch as their default gateway. It is not the failure mode evidenced here.

That hazard arises in a separate case: GET VPN group members can route between branches but new devices cannot obtain group security policy after a key-server loss. 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 network wants a hub-and-spoke topology for finance traffic but allows any-to-any policy for all service VPNs. It is not the failure mode evidenced here.

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

That hazard arises in a separate case: A campus designs priority queues only on the access switch but ignores a congested upstream WAN edge. It is not the failure mode evidenced here.

That hazard arises in a separate case: Video and voice both use one strict-priority queue, causing voice jitter when video surges. It is not the failure mode evidenced here.

That hazard arises in a separate case: A remote branch uses an OSPF stub area but a design change introduces an ASBR that must redistribute external routes within it. It is not the failure mode evidenced here.

That hazard arises in a separate case: A BGP operator attempts to influence routes within one AS by changing the weight attribute only on one edge router. 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.