Pass the Cisco CCNP Enterprise 300-420 Questions and answers with Dumpstech

BIDIR-PIM is the correct multicast mode for a video conferencing environment with numerous dispersed senders and receivers. Bidirectional PIM is designed for many-to-many multicast applications where receivers may also transmit and where maintaining per-source trees would create unnecessary state and control-plane overhead. Instead of building a shortest-path tree for every source, BIDIR-PIM uses a shared tree rooted at the rendezvous point and forwards traffic bidirectionally. This makes it attractive for collaborative applications and conferencing scenarios with many active participants. MP-BGP can carry multicast VPN or multicast routing information in service-provider designs, but it is not itself the multicast forwarding mode for this requirement. MSDP is used to exchange source information between PIM-SM domains, not to optimize many-to-many forwarding within the multicast design. IGMPv2 handles host membership signaling on local segments and does not provide the routed multicast mode. Reference topics: BIDIR-PIM, many-to-many multicast, shared tree, video conferencing multicast, PIM design.

Cisco Express Forwarding uses the adjacency table to store the Layer 2 rewrite information needed to forward packets efficiently. CEF separates forwarding decisions into the Forwarding Information Base and the adjacency table. The FIB identifies the best next hop based on routing information, while the adjacency table contains the directly connected next-hop details, including the MAC address and encapsulation rewrite string used on the outgoing interface. That is why the correct layer is Layer 2. CEF is not using the adjacency table to populate Layer 3 routes; the routing table and FIB handle Layer 3 reachability. It is also not a Layer 1 function because physical signaling does not determine the next-hop rewrite. Layer 4 is unrelated to CEF adjacency resolution. In a campus or WAN design, CEF matters because it allows hardware or optimized software forwarding without process-switching every packet. Correct ARP, neighbor discovery, and adjacency formation are therefore essential to fast packet forwarding, especially when convergence or high-throughput forwarding is required.

The selected IS-IS design must place the correct routers as Level 1/Level 2 boundary routers so that area failures stay local while traffic can still reach backbone application services. In a hierarchical IS-IS design, Level 1 routers exchange detailed topology only inside their own area. Level 2 routers form the backbone used for interarea connectivity. L1/L2 routers connect the local area to the backbone and advertise reachability between the two levels. Areas 20 and 30 are expected to double in size, and link flaps inside those areas must not impact the backbone. Therefore, the design should keep internal area routers at Level 1 and use only the boundary devices that connect those areas to the backbone as L1/L2. Option A matches that principle by selecting the appropriate boundary routers for interlevel connectivity while avoiding unnecessary L1/L2 adjacencies throughout the topology. The other options either place the wrong routers in Level 2 only or fail to provide a clean transition between local areas and the backbone. Reference topics: IS-IS hierarchy, L1/L2 boundary design, area containment, backbone stability, route leaking.

The selected configuration sets are correct because the addressing plan must use VLSM to maximize subnets and minimize wasted addresses. Customer A requires 125 hosts, so it needs a /25 subnet, which provides 126 usable host addresses. Customer D requires 62 hosts, so it needs a /26 subnet, which provides 62 usable addresses exactly. Point-to-point or small WAN links B, C, and E should use the smallest appropriate link subnets shown in the exhibit, typically /30 for IPv4 point-to-point links when two usable addresses are required. A correct plan must allocate the largest blocks first, align every subnet on the proper boundary, avoid overlap, and avoid assigning a larger-than-needed subnet to any customer or link. Options A and C are the two valid combinations that satisfy those rules in the exhibit. Any option that places a /25 or /26 on the wrong boundary, overlaps with another block, or wastes larger subnets on links would fail the design objective. Reference topics: IPv4 VLSM, subnet boundary alignment, host capacity planning, point-to-point addressing, route summarization readiness.

BFD for EIGRP is the strongest design option for improving convergence after access-layer switch or uplink failure on Layer 3 links. EIGRP hello and hold timers can detect failures, but aggressive timer reduction increases control-plane chatter and still may not provide consistent subsecond detection across platforms. Cisco BFD is specifically designed to provide rapid forwarding-path failure detection for routing protocols, including EIGRP, independent of the routing protocol hello mechanism. On point-to-point Layer 3 uplinks, BFD can notify EIGRP quickly when a neighbor path fails, allowing DUAL to react without waiting for the EIGRP hold timer. Summarization from access to aggregation is useful for query scoping and stability, but it does not directly detect an access switch failure faster. Summarization from core to aggregation has even less relevance to access uplink failure detection. Therefore, the design should enable BFD for EIGRP on the access-layer uplinks, with timer values chosen carefully according to platform capability and operational stability. Reference topics: EIGRP convergence, BFD, routed access, failure detection, DUAL.

VRF-Lite with OSPF satisfies the requirements because it creates multiple isolated Layer 3 routing tables without requiring a service-provider MPLS core or specialized hardware. Each VRF has its own forwarding table, interfaces, and route exchange process, so overlapping IP address space can exist in different virtual networks. When communication between segments is required, the design can use controlled route leaking, a firewall, or a shared-services VRF. OSPF can run per VRF to exchange routes within each isolated segment using widely supported routing technology. VSS, vPC, and plain 802.1Q with HSRP can improve Layer 2 or device redundancy, but they do not provide independent Layer 3 routing tables with overlapping addressing. A multihop MPLS design can also support many VPNs, but it is more complex and beyond the stated need for widely available technologies without specialized equipment. VRF-Lite is therefore the correct enterprise campus segmentation choice. Reference topics: VRF-Lite, virtual routing and forwarding, inter-VRF routing, overlapping IP address support, campus segmentation.

The action is to configure the EIGRP stub router in receive-only mode. Cisco EIGRP stub routing limits which routes a router advertises to neighbors, reducing query scope and improving stability in hub-and-spoke or WAN designs. The receive-only keyword is the most restrictive stub option: the router receives routes from neighbors but does not advertise any routes to them. That directly satisfies the requirement that WAN routes must not be advertised to the routers in the data center. Advertising only a default route still advertises routing information, so it does not meet the wording. Summarizing local subnets reduces the number of routes, but it still advertises reachability. The “distributed mode” option is not the correct EIGRP stub behavior for this requirement; redistributed stub mode would allow redistributed routes to be advertised. Receive-only is therefore the precise design control for stopping route advertisement from the stub router. Reference topics: EIGRP stub routing, receive-only mode, query scoping, route advertisement control, WAN-to-data-center design.

A dual-homed Internet design with a single edge router and site-to-site VPN topology best matches the stated cost and flexibility requirements. The customer needs redundant WAN links, has a limited budget, wants easy future bandwidth increases, and does not require consistent end-to-end QoS on the branch routers. Internet circuits are typically less expensive and easier to upgrade than MPLS access circuits, making them appropriate for small to medium-sized remote branches when strong QoS guarantees are not required. A single edge router also reduces hardware cost and operational complexity compared with dual edge routers. WAN MPLS designs can provide stronger service-level guarantees and QoS treatment, but they are more expensive and less flexible for rapid bandwidth upgrades. A design with dual edge routers improves device redundancy but conflicts with the limited-budget condition. Therefore, a dual-homed Internet solution using a site-to-site VPN overlay is the most appropriate option. The architect should still validate encryption requirements, failover behavior, routing preference, and whether the Internet underlay can meet application performance expectations. Reference topics: branch WAN design, dual Internet connectivity, site-to-site VPN, cost-driven WAN selection.

The SD-Access overlay should reduce subnet sprawl and avoid overlapping IP subnets unless there is a specific operational requirement. Cisco SD-Access creates overlay virtual networks over an IP underlay and uses anycast gateway, VXLAN encapsulation, LISP control-plane mapping, and policy constructs to simplify endpoint mobility and segmentation. Reducing the number of subnets simplifies DHCP scope management, default-gateway placement, and operational troubleshooting. Avoiding overlapping address space across overlay networks is also a practical design recommendation because overlapping subnets complicate shared services, fusion routing, security logging, and policy troubleshooting. LAN automation and a dedicated IGP process are underlay deployment considerations, not overlay design choices. Layer 3 to the access design is also associated with routed underlay and campus fabric transport, not the overlay segmentation model. A clean overlay design should define virtual networks, scalable groups, IP pools, shared-services reachability, and external connectivity before deployment. Reference topics: Cisco SD-Access overlay design, anycast gateway, virtual networks, DHCP simplification, overlapping subnet avoidance.

The fabric management plane in Cisco SD-Access enables automation techniques for device deployment and configuration. Cisco DNA Center, now commonly referenced as Cisco Catalyst Center, provides the management-plane capabilities used to automate underlay deployment, discover and provision devices, create fabric sites, assign roles, deploy virtual networks , and push policy-driven configurations. LISP-based endpoint identifiers and EID-to-RLOC mappings belong to the fabric control plane, not the management plane. IS-IS underlay routing is part of underlay network design and operation, not the management-plane function itself. The management plane exists so administrators do not have to build every fabric role, network segment, and policy manually on each individual device. In a well-designed SD-Access deployment, management-plane automation reduces configuration drift, accelerates site onboarding, and provides a consistent operational model across the campus fabric. Reference topics: Cisco SD-Access management plane, Cisco Catalyst Center, automation, device provisioning, fabric deployment, policy orchestration. It also provides the operational interface for assurance, inventory, and repeatable change control across the fabric.