Cisco 300-420 Exam Dumps, Practice Test Questions

That hazard arises in a separate case: An EIGRP core has routes stuck active after one WAN path fails and queries spread into many remote sites. It is not the failure mode evidenced here.

That hazard arises in a separate case: An iBGP route reflector sees several candidate routes to the same destination but advertises only its best path to clients. It is not the failure mode evidenced here.

That hazard arises in a separate case: A router receives two EIGRP routes for a prefix with different metrics and the design team wants deterministic failover. 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: A virtualized distribution pair uses one logical control plane and engineers assume it offers separate failure domains like two chassis in different buildings. It is not the failure mode evidenced here.

That hazard arises in a separate case: A security design requires authenticating OSPF control packets on shared routed links, but only one neighbor has authentication enabled. It is not the failure mode evidenced here.

That hazard arises in a separate case: IS-IS adjacencies form between distribution switches, but all internal prefixes are redistributed from OSPF without loop prevention. It is not the failure mode evidenced here.

That hazard arises in a separate case: A router receives two EIGRP routes for a prefix with different metrics and the design team wants deterministic failover. 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 architect assumes assigning DSCP CS6 to user browsing guarantees faster internet service from a provider that resets all DSCP. 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: An automation team expects NETCONF transactions over SSH to behave like stateless HTTP GET calls with no session or lock semantics. 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 monitoring team tries to exchange gNMI Get and Subscribe messages with a device that only exposes ordinary HTTP REST endpoints. 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: 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: An industrial site uses 4G LTE as primary WAN, and its routing team assumes public inbound addresses remain reachable through carrier-grade NAT. It is not the failure mode evidenced here.

That hazard arises in a separate case: An OSPF deployment puts all 600 remote access switches into area 0 and floods changes to every site. It is not the failure mode evidenced here.

That hazard arises in a separate case: Headquarters supports IPv4 but users now require IPv6 applications without losing legacy IPv4 services. 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 routed campus uses DHCP snooping on access switches but marks every endpoint port trusted for convenience. 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: Three campus sites peer with a shared WAN hub; every site transits through the hub even for cross-campus traffic and voice suffers latency. It is not the failure mode evidenced here.

That hazard arises in a separate case: A new WAN edge receives a bootstrap but its control connections fail because the certificate trust chain and organization name differ. It is not the failure mode evidenced here.

That hazard arises in a separate 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. 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: A QoS controller marks all backup data DSCP AF41 while the provider honors it as a premium video class. It is not the failure mode evidenced here.

That hazard arises in a separate case: A network architect assumes assigning DSCP CS6 to user browsing guarantees faster internet service from a provider that resets all DSCP. It is not the failure mode evidenced here.

That hazard arises in a separate case: An enterprise WAN receives DSCP values from untrusted guest clients and propagates them unchanged into privileged queues. It is not the failure mode evidenced here.

That hazard arises in a separate case: An edge router receives a full BGP table where the security policy allows only the provider's approved default. It is not the failure mode evidenced here.

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 new IPv6-only client subnet must access a legacy IPv4-only web endpoint through an enterprise gateway. It is not the failure mode evidenced here.