Cisco 300-420 Bundle

In-band-only management can share a fault with the network being repaired, eliminating the ability to recover remotely. “Provide secure out-of-band management through independent transport, power and authentication suitable for critical nodes” would remedy that alternative situation, but it would not correct the present issue: local log storage and rollover cannot substitute for reliable centralized timestamped security event retention.

“Classify authentic management flows and allocate controlled minimum service within the WAN's QoS policy” is the supported response when without proper management traffic classification and minimum bandwidth, congestion can starve necessary operations traffic. Here the decisive response is “Design redundant remote syslog collectors with protected transport, appropriate facilities and retention controls”, so that different intervention does not meet the stated requirement.

A common routing table broadens the management attack surface and increases risk of route or ACL leakage. “Create a supported management VRF or equivalent separated context and tightly controlled shared services as needed” applies to that other condition. The reported evidence is a campus router logs only locally and loses fault evidence after flash rotation, despite a requirement for long-term security investigation; this alternative would address the wrong dependency.

That change concerns sd access cisco ise identity policy role, where Identity group classification requires a trusted policy source and onboarding process rather than arbitrary address-based role guessing. The reported issue instead stems from: Physical link-up is insufficient to guarantee bidirectional signal integrity, which can affect control-plane protocols and forwarding.

That change concerns per vlan stp scalability, where A per-VLAN spanning-tree model scales protocol state with VLAN count and may become less efficient than suitable aggregated instances. In this question the necessary remedy is “Enable appropriate UDLD modes on supported fiber links and validate shutdown and recovery procedures”, which this alternative does not provide.

That change concerns stp loop guard unidirectional failure, where A non-designated STP port losing expected control messages can create a loop if it incorrectly assumes the superior path vanished. The observed condition is a duplex fiber campus uplink works in one direction but not the other, and interface carrier stays partially healthy while protocols behave unpredictably; this mechanism addresses another problem.

A purely hub-and-spoke forwarding policy can add latency and load when the DMVPN design is intended to allow direct spoke shortcuts. “Validate dynamic tunnel establishment and hub policy under branch renumbering and failover” would remedy that alternative situation, but it would not correct the present issue: logical dual-circuit contracts may share a physical access path and suffer a common-cause outage.

“Check dynamic public IP and NAT dependencies during DMVPN branch modem replacements” is the supported response when dynamic spoke resolution needs correct NHRP network ID, authentication, hub mapping and reachable tunnel source rather than only a live Internet connection. Here the decisive response is “Request physical route-diversity evidence and test failover rather than counting only interface numbers”, so that different intervention does not meet the stated requirement.

GRE provides encapsulation for multiple protocols but does not itself encrypt or authenticate payload confidentiality. “Separate tunnel encapsulation requirements from cryptographic protection during design reviews” applies to that other condition. The reported evidence is a branch selects two MPLS circuits from the same provider that terminate in one local trench and claims the resulting design is carrier diverse; this alternative would address the wrong dependency.

That change concerns sd access vxlan data plane role, where A fabric control plane supplies locator information, while the data plane uses supported VXLAN encapsulation to carry endpoint traffic. The reported issue instead stems from: Fabric overlay endpoints require a suitable border function to exchange external route reachability with nonfabric networks.

That change concerns sd access fabric edge host onboarding, where Ordinary underlay reachability does not assign endpoint onboarding and VXLAN edge functions to a nonfabric access device. In this question the necessary remedy is “Select appropriate fabric border nodes and external routing policy matching the site's transit and segmentation needs”, which this alternative does not provide.

That change concerns sd access lisp control plane mapping, where Fabric control-plane endpoint-to-location mapping must reflect movement and be consistent with current host registration. The observed condition 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 mechanism addresses another problem.

That change concerns wan backup route track to sla, where Local interface carrier may remain up when upstream service fails, so a static route without health tracking can blackhole traffic. The reported issue instead stems from: Multiple logical VLANs on the same physical CE and provider device do not provide independent failure domains.

That change concerns carrier layer 2 vpn mtu requirements, where Service encapsulation consumes transport overhead and can exceed an underlay MTU that was sized only for native Ethernet payloads. In this question the necessary remedy is “Design separate CE devices, access paths and service-provider terminations in accordance with the required availability objective”, which this alternative does not provide.

That change concerns multihomed BGP provider route preference, where Uncontrolled multihoming can select unpredictable exits and cause asymmetry or suboptimal paths under provider changes. The observed condition is a headquarters site hosts revenue-critical services but all WAN connections terminate on one carrier device and one customer-edge router; this mechanism addresses another problem.

Management availability and existing data-plane forwarding have different dependencies, while loss of manageability remains an operational risk. “Design redundant supported SD-WAN Managers with backup, RBAC and regional management reachability as appropriate” would remedy that alternative situation, but it would not correct the present issue: encapsulation and encryption overhead reduce effective path MTU, and missing PMTUD control messages can stall large packets.

“Design an approved extranet or shared-services VPN import/export model with explicit prefix filters and security enforcement” is the supported response when tenant route separation blocks cross-VPN reachability until carefully controlled route-target import/export rules make the intended service available. Here the decisive response is “Budget tunnel overhead, validate tunnel MTU/MSS adjustment and preserve necessary ICMP feedback”, so that different intervention does not meet the stated requirement.

Traditional point-to-point encryption tunnel meshes may add unnecessary topology and scale complexity for a trusted private routed underlay. “Evaluate supported GET VPN group key distribution and policy design where technology and business requirements fit” applies to that other condition. The reported evidence is a branch adds GRE over IPsec and experiences intermittent large-file transfer failures even though small test pings work; this alternative would address the wrong dependency.

That change concerns msdp interdomain active source sharing, where Independent rendezvous points do not automatically exchange all active-source information across ASM multicast domains. The reported issue instead stems from: PIM DR election provides a defined designated router role on a multiaccess segment to avoid conflicting join responsibilities.

That change concerns igmpv3 receiver source specification, where Source-specific multicast applications need supported source-aware receiver membership signaling, commonly IGMPv3 for IPv4. In this question the necessary remedy is “Design suitable PIM interface priorities and neighbor reachability for predictable designated-router selection”, which this alternative does not provide.

That change concerns pim bidirectional many to many traffic, where A dense many-to-many application can impose excessive source tree state if its delivery model ignores suitable shared bidirectional multicast designs. The observed condition is a shared LAN has two PIM routers and a new receiver joins, but both routers attempt to act as the first-hop join forwarder for the segment; this mechanism addresses another problem.

IS-IS Level 1 operates within an area while Level 2 provides inter-area connectivity and should bound unwanted topology flooding. “Review IS-IS level boundaries whenever branch count grows or a site moves between geographic areas” would remedy that alternative situation, but it would not correct the present issue: premature use of a partially ready intermediate system can blackhole transit despite apparently formed control-plane neighbors.

“Document ULA-to-global boundaries and ensure policies and DNS do not accidentally expose internal-only IPv6 addresses” is the supported response when provider-dependent global prefixes may require renumbering when upstream connectivity changes and do not replace a stable local-only design. Here the decisive response is “Include restart and overload-bit behavior in IS-IS maintenance acceptance and failover testing”, so that different intervention does not meet the stated requirement.

Typical Ethernet SLAAC uses /64 interface identifiers and ordinary host autoconfiguration expectations are not met by arbitrary longer access prefixes. “Validate IPv6 prefix lengths against actual endpoint SLAAC and Neighbor Discovery requirements before deployment” applies to that other condition. The reported evidence is a router with IS-IS adjacencies comes back after reboot before its forwarding resources and external routes finish loading, but its neighbors immediately use it as a transit node; this alternative would address the wrong dependency.

Ordinary directed and local broadcasts do not automatically cross routed boundaries, so an explicit authorized delivery design is required. “Design secure supported WoL relays, proxy agents or local management distribution rather than exposing unrestricted broadcasts” would remedy that alternative situation, but it would not correct the present issue: an SVI routed ACL does not necessarily inspect intra-VLAN switched frames that never reach Layer 3 forwarding.

“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 VACL, private VLAN or separate VLAN segmentation according to local traffic patterns and platform capabilities”, so that different intervention does not meet the stated requirement.

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” applies to that other condition. The reported evidence is two servers share a VLAN, but security engineers place an ACL only on the routed SVI and assume it filters all direct Layer 2 traffic between them; this alternative would address the wrong dependency.

Random early detection is usually better aligned with responsive TCP queues than with high-priority delay-sensitive voice traffic. “Use appropriate congestion avoidance on suitable best-effort TCP classes and protect voice through controlled priority service” would remedy that alternative situation, but it would not correct the present issue: without explicit multicast boundary control, group advertisements or forwarding may extend beyond authorized trust domains.

“Assess multicast replication at branching points or other supported content distribution design with receiver policy” is the supported response when naive replicated unicast can consume far more shared-link capacity than a suitable multicast tree for many receivers. Here the decisive response is “Apply supported multicast group or source boundary filtering at the appropriate WAN and tenant interfaces”, so that different intervention does not meet the stated requirement.

PIM sparse mode forwarding relies on supported multicast routing and receiver membership along the required multicast distribution tree. “Enable appropriate PIM and IGMP behavior on intended routed interfaces and validate RP and RPF reachability” applies to that other condition. The reported evidence is a company distributes executive multicast video to finance buildings, but the design allows the group to cross into an outsourced guest network; this alternative would address the wrong dependency.

Management availability and existing data-plane forwarding have different dependencies, while loss of manageability remains an operational risk. “Design redundant supported SD-WAN Managers with backup, RBAC and regional management reachability as appropriate” would remedy that alternative situation, but it would not correct the present issue: mobile backup is useful only if real coverage, policy, cost and failure independence support required branch services.

“Select a supported MPLS L3VPN design using separate VPN routing tables and approved route-target import/export policy” is the supported response when a shared provider routing domain cannot preserve independent overlapping tenant address spaces and route targets without isolation. Here the decisive response is “Design cellular failover with tested signal strength, provider diversity, data-plan capacity and selective critical traffic routing”, so that different intervention does not meet the stated requirement.

Multipoint Ethernet services and many independent E-Line circuits have different Layer 2 forwarding and spanning-tree implications. “Choose appropriate Metro Ethernet point-to-point or multipoint service topology with explicit VLAN and loop-avoidance design” applies to that other condition. The reported evidence is a remote retail site uses a single fixed broadband circuit and proposes 5G backup without checking data caps, radio conditions or carrier diversity; this alternative would address the wrong dependency.