Cisco 300-420 Exam Dumps, Practice Test Questions

That option concerns a separate design case: A campus advertises a /18 summary into the WAN but has no route for one constituent /24 after a building is decommissioned. The relevant control here is: Evaluate whether additional-paths or path diversity is required and supported by the topology and platforms.

That option concerns a separate design case: A branch EIGRP router advertises remote routes back into its hub and occasionally becomes a transit path between hubs. The relevant control here is: Evaluate whether additional-paths or path diversity is required and supported by the topology and platforms.

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: Evaluate whether additional-paths or path diversity is required and supported by the topology and platforms.

That option concerns a separate design case: A bank contracts two MPLS providers but both fiber tails enter the building through the same conduit. The relevant control here is: Design controlled interprovider VRF routing and CE route policy with explicit security and resiliency boundaries.

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: Design controlled interprovider VRF routing and CE route policy with explicit security and resiliency boundaries.

That option concerns a separate design case: GET VPN group members can route between branches but new devices cannot obtain group security policy after a key-server loss. The relevant control here is: Design controlled interprovider VRF routing and CE route policy with explicit security and resiliency boundaries.

That option concerns a separate design case: A campus topology places critical services behind one regional core switch despite redundant uplinks elsewhere. The relevant control here is: Use VRF-based routing separation with explicitly controlled route leaking for shared services.

That option concerns a separate design case: Two campus distribution routers each have a single power feed from the same rack PDU, yet the architecture counts them as separate fault domains. The relevant control here is: Use VRF-based routing separation with explicitly controlled route leaking for shared services.

That option concerns a separate design case: A campus has a fabric border but its external firewall cannot distinguish multiple endpoint VNs leaving the fabric. The relevant control here is: Use VRF-based routing separation with explicitly controlled route leaking for shared services.

That option concerns a separate design case: A routing telemetry client assumes every operational counter supports on-change updates and receives no updates on one platform. The relevant control here is: Negotiate supported YANG model names/revisions and update payload paths accordingly.

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: Negotiate supported YANG model names/revisions and update payload paths accordingly.

That option concerns a separate design case: A customer rents virtual machines from a provider and must patch their operating systems, but procurement classifies the service as SaaS. The relevant control here is: Negotiate supported YANG model names/revisions and update payload paths accordingly.

That option concerns a separate design case: A partner BGP session accidentally advertises a sensitive 10.0.0.0/8 internal route to an external ASN. The relevant control here is: Remove or constrain the summary when it attracts traffic to networks not reachable through the campus boundary.

That option concerns a separate design case: A branch engineer redistributes a static default route into EIGRP and advertises it to every site, overriding the intended hub defaults. The relevant control here is: Remove or constrain the summary when it attracts traffic to networks not reachable through the campus boundary.

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: Remove or constrain the summary when it attracts traffic to networks not reachable through the campus boundary.

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: Give critical management/control traffic an appropriate protected class and regulate bulk backup load.

That option concerns a separate design case: A campus uses DSCP EF for voice signaling, voice media, and backup traffic, causing priority queue overload. The relevant control here is: Give critical management/control traffic an appropriate protected class and regulate bulk backup load.

That option concerns a separate design case: Network management of a branch uses a VPN over its sole primary WAN, and the organization reports no way to diagnose a provider outage. The relevant control here is: Give critical management/control traffic an appropriate protected class and regulate bulk backup load.

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: Refine the summary to reflect reachable networks and provide appropriate handling for withdrawn components.

That option concerns a separate design case: A regional site uses EIGRP neighbors with mismatched autonomous system numbers despite matching IP subnet and authentication. The relevant control here is: Refine the summary to reflect reachable networks and provide appropriate handling for withdrawn components.

That option concerns a separate design case: An EIGRP deployment relies on a single aggregation router and an outage cuts off all downstream branches. The relevant control here is: Refine the summary to reflect reachable networks and provide appropriate handling for withdrawn components.

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: Distinguish endpoint mapping/control distribution from VXLAN-encapsulated user-data forwarding.

That option concerns a separate design case: An NSF-capable router pair loses a control-plane process briefly and the design assumes all neighboring routers will preserve forwarding. The relevant control here is: Distinguish endpoint mapping/control distribution from VXLAN-encapsulated user-data forwarding.

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: Distinguish endpoint mapping/control distribution from VXLAN-encapsulated user-data forwarding.

That option concerns a separate design case: SD-WAN edges register to the validator but receive no OMP route updates from the controller, and the team claims the underlay is broken. The relevant control here is: Use supported failure detection/track or BFD mechanisms with explicit failover policy and reasonable timers.

That option concerns a separate design case: Backup 5G is installed at a factory but its data plan and APN firewall rules block VPN establishment after primary fiber failure. The relevant control here is: Use supported failure detection/track or BFD mechanisms with explicit failover policy and reasonable timers.

That option concerns a separate design case: An industrial site uses 4G LTE as primary WAN, and its routing team assumes public inbound addresses remain reachable through carrier-grade NAT. The relevant control here is: Use supported failure detection/track or BFD mechanisms with explicit failover policy and reasonable timers.

That option concerns a separate design case: A multicast source is reachable through an interface other than the one receiving the packet, but the router still forwards it to all receivers. The relevant control here is: Design OOB authentication and recovery with an approved bounded fallback independent of production paths.

That option concerns a separate design case: Network management of a branch uses a VPN over its sole primary WAN, and the organization reports no way to diagnose a provider outage. The relevant control here is: Design OOB authentication and recovery with an approved bounded fallback independent of production paths.

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: Design OOB authentication and recovery with an approved bounded fallback independent of production paths.

That option concerns a separate design case: A switch must remotely wake office PCs overnight, but the access port powers down and the design assumes Wake-on-LAN works regardless of power state. The relevant control here is: Reclassify the specific supported bridge-facing port and retain edge protection elsewhere.

That option concerns a separate design case: IP phones and cameras are scheduled for a new closet, but PoE budget is calculated only from the switch's total port count. The relevant control here is: Reclassify the specific supported bridge-facing port and retain edge protection elsewhere.

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: Reclassify the specific supported bridge-facing port and retain edge protection elsewhere.