Cisco 300-420 Bundle

MST region membership requires consistent region identifier, revision and VLAN mapping rather than matching only some VLAN names. “Align approved MST region configuration and verify boundary ports and per-instance root placement” would remedy that alternative situation, but it would not correct the present issue: traditional active-standby first-hop redundancy does not by itself provide the desired per-client gateway load distribution.

“Restore approved VLAN trunk reachability and compatible HSRP group and timer settings across both devices” is the supported response when FHRP peers must exchange control messages in a correctly shared VLAN to maintain a single active forwarding role. Here the decisive response is “Consider GLBP where supported or a different routed access and anycast design, based on platform capability and operational needs”, so that different intervention does not meet the stated requirement.

Gateway role restoration depends on the selected FHRP protocol and its configured preemption settings, not priority numbers alone. “Choose a documented VRRP preemption design with safe delay and reachability tracking that fits service stability goals” applies to that other condition. The reported evidence is a large access VLAN needs multiple distribution gateways to forward client traffic concurrently, but the proposed HSRP design forwards all hosts through one active router; this alternative would address the wrong dependency.

That change concerns BGP next hop self across ibgp, where iBGP typically preserves the external next hop, which must be reachable through the internal routing infrastructure. The reported issue instead stems from: EIGRP unequal-cost load sharing is not enabled simply because multiple routes exist and is constrained by feasibility and variance.

That change concerns eigrp route summarization at hub, where Unnecessary specific-route propagation increases state and change sensitivity without providing required central policy detail. In this question the necessary remedy is “Assess feasible successors and apply an approved variance design with realistic traffic-share expectations”, which this alternative does not provide.

That change concerns eigrp feasible successor requirements, where An EIGRP feasible successor must satisfy its feasibility condition relative to the successor's feasible distance to prevent loops. The observed condition is a regional hub has a primary 100 Mbps path and secondary 50 Mbps path and wants controlled EIGRP unequal-cost use, but the default setting installs only equal-cost routes; this mechanism addresses another problem.

A conventional port channel cannot span unrelated independent switches without a supported multichassis or stacking mechanism. “Use a validated multichassis EtherChannel, virtual switching, or routed dual-homing design for platform capabilities” would remedy that alternative situation, but it would not correct the present issue: etherChannel members need compatible Layer 2 settings and negotiated bundling state to represent a correct logical link.

“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 “Standardize member configuration and use supported LACP negotiation and consistency checks for the port channel”, so that different intervention does not meet the stated requirement.

Available PoE power budget and per-port capabilities determine whether simultaneous endpoint power requirements can be met. “Calculate endpoint power demand, switch capacity and redundancy margins and choose appropriate power supplies or models” applies to that other condition. The reported evidence is an access switch bundles two ports toward a distribution switch but one member carries different VLAN tags and the bundle intermittently drops traffic; this alternative would address the wrong dependency.

IPv6-only clients cannot communicate with IPv4-only services without supported translation and suitable destination synthesis. “Design appropriate NAT64 plus DNS64 service boundaries, DNS behavior and application compatibility exceptions” would remedy that alternative situation, but it would not correct the present issue: a flat random allocation from the /48 wastes the opportunity for site-level hierarchy and complicates growth and route summarization.

“Reserve contiguous region-sized address blocks, allocate branch VLSM prefixes inside each block and summarize only reachable ranges at distribution boundaries” is the supported response when randomly scattered branch subnets prevent region-level summarization and make routing and change control unnecessarily complex. Here the decisive response is “Reserve logical per-site prefixes within the /48, allocate appropriate /64 LANs and maintain documented room for subnets and future services”, so that different intervention does not meet the stated requirement.

A /15 covers two consecutive aligned /16 networks and the selected /15 omits 10.66.0.0/16 while including unintended space. “Create aligned aggregates that cover actual component prefixes and validate binary prefix boundaries and the destination routing behavior” applies to that other condition. The reported evidence is an organization receives an IPv6 /48 and assigns different arbitrary /64s to access LANs without reserving site blocks or a summarization scheme; this alternative would address the wrong dependency.

GNMI is a model-driven management interface commonly using gRPC streaming and structured path/value messages rather than a generic webpage. “Validate certificates, encoding and subscription lifecycle when onboarding gNMI-capable devices” would remedy that alternative situation, but it would not correct the present issue: traditional centralized route topology can add delay and consume backbone capacity even when local cloud on-ramp options are available.

“Review provider location and device diversity rather than treating two logical virtual interfaces as two physical links” is the supported response when logical network separation on one physical direct-connect facility does not eliminate common power, provider or meet-me-room failures. Here the decisive response is “Validate cloud route advertisement, return path and security controls before enabling distributed cloud breakout”, so that different intervention does not meet the stated requirement.

Private transport does not automatically enforce tenant segmentation or prevent unintended route exchange into cloud environments. “Audit cloud gateway, route-target and BGP export policy at each new private cloud interconnect” applies to that other condition. The reported evidence is an enterprise uses SD-WAN at branches and wants direct low-latency cloud access, but cloud-hosted routes still hairpin through a remote data center; this alternative would address the wrong dependency.

Missing site-level address summarization increases routing state and exposes the WAN to local campus topology churn. “Plan contiguous campus address blocks and advertise valid site summaries at L3 distribution or WAN boundaries” would remedy that alternative situation, but it would not correct the present issue: a common routing instance cannot enforce independent overlapping IP destinations and controlled route exposure by itself.

“Design routed access where supported, using local Layer 3 boundaries and deterministic IGP connectivity between buildings” is the supported response when extending Layer 2 broadly across campus buildings increases loop, convergence and failure-domain exposure. Here the decisive response is “Design supported VRF-lite routing instances with carefully governed shared-services connectivity and separate interface assignments”, so that different intervention does not meet the stated requirement.

Bidirectional multipoint redistribution without route tagging or authoritative direction can reintroduce routes into their source protocol. “Apply explicit redistribution filters, tags, metrics and domain ownership at each boundary with deliberate failure fallback” applies to that other condition. The reported evidence is guest kiosks and regulated finance terminals share one campus routing table despite requirements that their overlapping address blocks remain isolated; this alternative would address the wrong dependency.

FHRP peers must exchange control messages in a correctly shared VLAN to maintain a single active forwarding role. “Restore approved VLAN trunk reachability and compatible HSRP group and timer settings across both devices” would remedy that alternative situation, but it would not correct the present issue: gateway role restoration depends on the selected FHRP protocol and its configured preemption settings, not priority numbers alone.

“Track the required upstream path and decrement priority enough for a healthy standby gateway to assume forwarding” is the supported response when FHRP presence alone may not account for upstream path viability without appropriate object or interface tracking. Here the decisive response is “Choose a documented VRRP preemption design with safe delay and reachability tracking that fits service stability goals”, so that different intervention does not meet the stated requirement.

A single physical gateway address makes host access depend on one distribution device even when a second gateway exists. “Design a supported FHRP virtual gateway with aligned priorities, Layer 2 reachability and safe failover between distribution switches” applies to that other condition. The reported evidence 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 alternative would address the wrong dependency.

A fragmented area-address plan and missing ABR inter-area summarization cause avoidable detailed LSAs to propagate. “Allocate summarizable ranges and apply appropriate ABR area range configuration with complete component-route validation” would remedy that alternative situation, but it would not correct the present issue: a normal area floods external routing information that stub-capable branches may not need when a default route is sufficient.

“Design redundant ABRs with valid backbone area connectivity and deterministic cost preferences for inter-area paths” is the supported response when OSPF hierarchical inter-area connectivity depends on a stable backbone design and resilient area border connectivity. Here the decisive response is “Choose a supported stub-area design consistently across the area and ensure the ABR provides an appropriate default route”, so that different intervention does not meet the stated requirement.

External Type 2 cost behavior does not account for internal cost in the same way as Type 1 when external metrics differ. “Select E1 or E2 route treatment to reflect the required exit preference, testing both external and internal metrics” applies to that other condition. The reported evidence is a branch OSPF area has no external-route ASBR but receives unnecessary external LSAs from the backbone and has constrained router memory; this alternative would address the wrong dependency.

PIM DR election provides a defined designated router role on a multiaccess segment to avoid conflicting join responsibilities. “Design suitable PIM interface priorities and neighbor reachability for predictable designated-router selection” would remedy that alternative situation, but it would not correct the present issue: a dense many-to-many application can impose excessive source tree state if its delivery model ignores suitable shared bidirectional multicast designs.

“Use supported MSDP or a suitable alternative interdomain multicast design with appropriate RP and source policies” is the supported response when independent rendezvous points do not automatically exchange all active-source information across ASM multicast domains. Here the decisive response is “Evaluate bidirectional PIM or another supported distribution method against source count, RP and security requirements”, so that different intervention does not meet the stated requirement.

ASM initially uses a shared RP tree and may switch to source-specific shortest-path forwarding according to design and platform behavior. “Evaluate supported SPT threshold and source-tree design for bandwidth and latency goals without creating RPF inconsistencies” applies to that other condition. The reported evidence is a collaboration application has many multicast senders in the same group and operators propose building separate source-specific trees for every participant; this alternative would address the wrong dependency.

OSPF hierarchical inter-area connectivity depends on a stable backbone design and resilient area border connectivity. “Design redundant ABRs with valid backbone area connectivity and deterministic cost preferences for inter-area paths” would remedy that alternative situation, but it would not correct the present issue: unnecessary specific-route propagation increases state and change sensitivity without providing required central policy detail.

“Use explicit tag-based redistribution policy, defined metrics and directional filters at well-documented borders” is the supported response when uncontrolled bidirectional redistribution can reintroduce routes, create loops and lose source-of-truth route preference. Here the decisive response is “Apply well-bounded route summaries at distribution interfaces only after validating component networks and discard consequences”, so that different intervention does not meet the stated requirement.

Neighbor authentication parameters and permitted key windows must align or the routing protocol rejects peer messages. “Coordinate supported EIGRP authentication changes and key rollover across both peers with safe cutover” applies to that other condition. The reported evidence is a distribution router advertises every tiny branch prefix separately into the EIGRP core even though branches are allocated in contiguous blocks; this alternative would address the wrong dependency.

A common routing instance cannot enforce independent overlapping IP destinations and controlled route exposure by itself. “Design supported VRF-lite routing instances with carefully governed shared-services connectivity and separate interface assignments” would remedy that alternative situation, but it would not correct the present issue: link redundancy within the fabric does not guarantee sufficient external border forwarding capacity during degraded operation.

“Design supported fabric-to-fabric transit via qualified borders and consistent virtual-network route and security policy” is the supported response when physical underlay IP connectivity does not by itself establish appropriate inter-fabric transit, route exchange and segmentation policy. Here the decisive response is “Size border nodes and redundant exits for N-minus-one load, applying failure-domain and traffic-engineering requirements”, so that different intervention does not meet the stated requirement.

Fabric wireless requires supported controller and edge integration and consistent segmentation assignments for mobile clients. “Design the supported fabric wireless control-plane and data-plane integration with validated WLAN-to-VN mapping” applies to that other condition. The reported evidence is a fabric design has redundant edge uplinks but no redundant border capacity, so a single border failure overloads the remaining exit path; this alternative would address the wrong dependency.