Cisco 300-420 Bundle

Secure SD-WAN fabric admission requires authorized organization identifiers and valid identity trust, not just IP routing. “Design approved CA trust, certificate lifecycle and device authorization procedures for every control node and edge” would remedy that alternative situation, but it would not correct the present issue: static transport preference does not substitute for application-aware path decisions using measured latency, loss and jitter.

“Design approved branch egress security with local firewall, cloud security service or appropriate service chaining” is the supported response when local breakout bypasses central inspection unless equivalent secure edge controls and policy are deliberately placed. Here the decisive response is “Create supported application-aware routing policy with validated SLA class thresholds and fallback behavior”, so that different intervention does not meet the stated requirement.

An unsegmented overlay routing context can make trust-boundary errors more likely even if some edge access rules exist. “Use separate service VPN or VRF contexts with explicit leak rules and security policy at authorized shared-service borders” applies to that other condition. The reported evidence is a voice collaboration app takes the least-cost broadband transport even when packet loss breaches an SLA because policy only prefers link color and ignores live performance; this alternative would address the wrong dependency.

Without port security or identity-aware access control, a simple access port may learn multiple endpoint MAC addresses without limitation. “Deploy suitable port security or 802.1X/MAB policies with sensible violation and recovery handling for endpoint types” would remedy that alternative situation, but it would not correct the present issue: available PoE power budget and per-port capabilities determine whether simultaneous endpoint power requirements can be met.

“Design secure supported WoL relays, proxy agents or local management distribution rather than exposing unrestricted broadcasts” is the supported response when ordinary directed and local broadcasts do not automatically cross routed boundaries, so an explicit authorized delivery design is required. Here the decisive response is “Calculate endpoint power demand, switch capacity and redundancy margins and choose appropriate power supplies or models”, so that different intervention does not meet the stated requirement.

EtherChannel members need compatible Layer 2 settings and negotiated bundling state to represent a correct logical link. “Standardize member configuration and use supported LACP negotiation and consistency checks for the port channel” applies to that other condition. The reported evidence is a network redesign adds video endpoints to every access port but budgets only for switch port count, ignoring PoE class and aggregate power draw; this alternative would address the wrong dependency.

On-change subscriptions report eligible state changes, not necessarily uniformly spaced observations required for some time-series analytics. “Choose supported periodic or sample telemetry publication with a suitable interval for the planning metric” would remedy that alternative situation, but it would not correct the present issue: RESTCONF uses resource-oriented HTTP methods with defined read and write semantics, so GET is not an appropriate configuration write operation.

“Match API protocol to the orchestrator requirements and supported device capabilities, including SSH/XML NETCONF or HTTP/RESTCONF workflows” is the supported response when NETCONF and RESTCONF share model-driven concepts but use different protocol transports, operation semantics and session behavior. Here the decisive response is “Use supported RESTCONF PATCH, PUT or POST methods at correct YANG resource paths with authorization and content types”, so that different intervention does not meet the stated requirement.

Coarse periodic publication can delay visibility of short state transitions and is not equivalent to supported event-driven on-change reporting. “Use supported on-change telemetry for the neighbor state path with safeguards for subscriber load and update volume” applies to that other condition. The reported evidence is an automation tool sends a GET request to change a router interface description and assumes any successful HTTP response implies a configuration mutation; this alternative would address the wrong dependency.

That change concerns campus virtual switching platform abstraction, where A virtualized or stacked switching design needs supported control, state and multichassis link mechanisms to act as one logical system. The reported issue instead stems from: IP-prefix ACLs become brittle when identity and endpoint groups move, while fabric policy can use scalable group-based classification.

That change concerns sd access virtual network macro segmentation, where Security group policy alone may not replace full virtual-network level route isolation where separate macrosegments are required. In this question the necessary remedy is “Use authorized scalable group tags and matching group-based access policy integrated with the intended identity service”, which this alternative does not provide.

That change concerns sd access multicast in overlay fabric, where Fabric overlay multicast support and replication design have specific control and data-plane requirements beyond simple underlay multicast reachability. The observed condition is two employee groups must share a fabric virtual network for common application routing but security wants group-based access without maintaining thousands of individual IPv4 ACL entries; this mechanism addresses another problem.

Ordinary underlay reachability does not assign endpoint onboarding and VXLAN edge functions to a nonfabric access device. “Provision eligible access devices as supported fabric edge nodes and verify host onboarding and virtual network assignments” would remedy that alternative situation, but it would not correct the present issue: fabric overlay endpoints require a suitable border function to exchange external route reachability with nonfabric networks.

“Design overlay forwarding paths with validated VXLAN reachability, fabric edge encapsulation and proper transport MTU” is the supported response when a fabric control plane supplies locator information, while the data plane uses supported VXLAN encapsulation to carry endpoint traffic. Here the decisive response is “Select appropriate fabric border nodes and external routing policy matching the site's transit and segmentation needs”, so that different intervention does not meet the stated requirement.

Fabric control-plane endpoint-to-location mapping must reflect movement and be consistent with current host registration. “Use supported redundant LISP control-plane nodes and verify endpoint registration and mapping refresh behavior” applies to that other condition. The reported evidence is fabric users can communicate internally, but no external network reaches them because no node provides the correct border between fabric and traditional campus routing; this alternative would address the wrong dependency.

That change concerns hsrp upstream interface tracking, where FHRP presence alone may not account for upstream path viability without appropriate object or interface tracking. The reported issue instead stems from: Gateway role restoration depends on the selected FHRP protocol and its configured preemption settings, not priority numbers alone.

That change concerns hsrp default gateway resilience, where A single physical gateway address makes host access depend on one distribution device even when a second gateway exists. In this question the necessary remedy is “Choose a documented VRRP preemption design with safe delay and reachability tracking that fits service stability goals”, which this alternative does not provide.

That change concerns hsrp split brain and vlan consistency, where FHRP peers must exchange control messages in a correctly shared VLAN to maintain a single active forwarding role. The observed condition is after a higher-priority distribution router returns from maintenance, operations expects it to become master automatically but the chosen VRRP preemption behavior was disabled; this mechanism addresses another problem.

Encapsulation and encryption overhead reduce effective path MTU, and missing PMTUD control messages can stall large packets. “Include maximum-frame and PMTU tests in every overlay transport acceptance plan” would remedy that alternative situation, but it would not correct the present issue: shortcut VPN topology changes can bypass required inspection if the WAN policy assumes every flow transits a central hub.

“Test off-site failure scenarios where the local modem stays up rather than only unplugging the branch cable” is the supported response when local interface carrier may remain up when upstream service fails, so a static route without health tracking can blackhole traffic. Here the decisive response is “Review VPN shortcut and route optimization features whenever security architecture mandates central inspection”, so that different intervention does not meet the stated requirement.

Service encapsulation consumes transport overhead and can exceed an underlay MTU that was sized only for native Ethernet payloads. “Include provider label and VLAN overhead in handoff acceptance tests and service contracts” applies to that other condition. The reported evidence is a company permits interbranch traffic only after central security inspection, but a newly deployed direct branch tunnel bypasses the hub firewall; this alternative would address the wrong dependency.

Traffic classification order and policy constructs can cause broad conditions to overshadow intended more-specific class handling. “Regression-test representative app and protocol matches after editing QoS class definitions” would remedy that alternative situation, but it would not correct the present issue: policy percentages alone do not preserve service if critical aggregate traffic exceeds reduced failover link capacity.

“Measure peak burst distributions and media quality rather than only daily average link utilization” is the supported response when average throughput can hide instantaneous bursts and delay variation that disrupt real-time media even when link utilization seems moderate. Here the decisive response is “Maintain separate primary and failover traffic budgets and test both periodically”, so that different intervention does not meet the stated requirement.

Input classification and policing operate on traffic entering an interface, while output scheduling applies to egress congestion. “Require interface-direction diagrams when reviewing QoS policies” applies to that other condition. The reported evidence is a branch's primary WAN has 100 Mbps and backup cellular has 15 Mbps, but both use the same traffic allocation values with no degraded-mode plan; this alternative would address the wrong dependency.

Layer 1 carrier state may not reveal a downstream path failure and slow neighbor detection extends blackhole time. “Deploy supported BFD for the intended OSPF peers, validate timers against platform capacity and test false-positive risk” would remedy that alternative situation, but it would not correct the present issue: unauthenticated routing adjacencies on a shared segment create topology-manipulation exposure and accidental peer acceptance.

“Enable intended IPv6 unicast AFI/SAFI activation, reachable next hops and export filtering consistently on peers” is the supported response when a BGP TCP session does not automatically negotiate or advertise every address family without appropriate capabilities and policy. Here the decisive response is “Enable the appropriate supported OSPF authentication and key rollout at trusted adjacency boundaries”, so that different intervention does not meet the stated requirement.

Unrestricted BGP export policy exposes destinations not authorized for upstream announcement and risks routing leaks. “Apply explicit approved outbound prefix filters at the eBGP boundary and validate maximum prefix expectations” applies to that other condition. The reported evidence is a campus routing design permits unauthorized OSPF Hellos on shared distribution links, and security cannot prove peer identity; this alternative would address the wrong dependency.

Coarse periodic publication can delay visibility of short state transitions and is not equivalent to supported event-driven on-change reporting. “Use supported on-change telemetry for the neighbor state path with safeguards for subscriber load and update volume” would remedy that alternative situation, but it would not correct the present issue: a hybrid deployment can transfer sensitive data or metadata across administrative and geographic boundaries even when application compute stays on-premises.

“Use supported RESTCONF PATCH, PUT or POST methods at correct YANG resource paths with authorization and content types” is the supported response when RESTCONF uses resource-oriented HTTP methods with defined read and write semantics, so GET is not an appropriate configuration write operation. Here the decisive response is “Design controlled hybrid data flow, regional placement and access policies that satisfy residency and connectivity requirements”, so that different intervention does not meet the stated requirement.

Cloud service models allocate operational responsibility differently; consuming PaaS normally shifts underlying host management while retaining customer data and access duties. “Choose a suitable SaaS, PaaS or IaaS architecture with an explicit responsibility matrix for app, identity, runtime and infrastructure” applies to that other condition. The reported evidence is an enterprise has customer records that must remain in a private data center but moves its analytics control plane to a public cloud SaaS service without examining metadata export; this alternative would address the wrong dependency.

Multiple logical VLANs on the same physical CE and provider device do not provide independent failure domains. “Design separate CE devices, access paths and service-provider terminations in accordance with the required availability objective” would remedy that alternative situation, but it would not correct the present issue: n-minus-one operation cannot carry combined load if each remaining link lacks spare capacity or business traffic prioritization.

“Design supported Catalyst SD-WAN orchestrator reachability and certificate trust separately from data-plane transport tunnels” is the supported response when the orchestration function helps WAN edges discover and authenticate to the fabric but should not be placed in the regular data forwarding path. Here the decisive response is “Size redundant WAN capacity for failure-state critical loads or design explicit congestion and traffic-class degradation policy”, so that different intervention does not meet the stated requirement.

Bandwidth alone does not determine application suitability when propagation delay and jitter exceed interactive service limits. “Choose appropriate low-latency WAN transport and QoS treatment, evaluating cost, resilience and route diversity” applies to that other condition. The reported evidence is two regional WAN links each run at eighty percent peak utilization, but design documents promise full service during loss of either one; this alternative would address the wrong dependency.