McAfee Secure

Cisco 300-410 Bundle

Exam Code: 300-410

Exam Name Implementing Cisco Enterprise Advanced Routing and Services (ENARSI)

Certification Provider: Cisco

Corresponding Certification: CCNP Enterprise

Cisco 300-410 Bundle $25.00
300-410 Sample 1 300-410 Sample 2 300-410 Sample 3 300-410 Sample 4 300-410 Sample 5 300-410 Sample 6 300-410 Sample 7 300-410 Sample 8 300-410 Sample 9 300-410 Sample 10

100% Cisco 300-410 Guaranteed Success With Testking Training Materials

Get Real 300-410 Exam Questions & Expert Verified Answers as Experienced on the Real Exam!

  • Questions & Answers

    300-410 Questions & Answers

    498 Questions & Answers

    The ultimate exam preparation tool, Questions & Answers mirrors the actual 300-410 exam while allowing you to hone and measure every aspect of your test-taking ability.

  • 300-410 Video Course

    300-410 Training Course

    129 Video Lectures

    300-410 Video Course is developed by Cisco Professionals to help you pass the 300-410 exam.

    Description

    This course will improve your knowledge and skills required to pass Implementing Cisco Enterprise Advanced Routing and Services (ENARSI) exam.

Implementing Cisco Enterprise Advanced Routing and Services (ENARSI) (300-410) Practice Tests

Satisfaction Guaranteed

Money Back Guarantee

Testking provides hassle-free money back guarantee with our products. That is because we have 100% trust in the abilities of our professional and experience product team, and our record is a proof of that.

99.6% PASS RATE
Total Cost: $164.98
Bundle Price: $139.98

Purchase Individually

  • Questions & Answers

    Questions & Answers

    498 Questions

    $124.99
  • 300-410 Video Course

    Training Course

    129 Video Lectures

    $39.99

Cisco 300-410 Practice Test 23

Question 220

At the Elmfield engineering office, R-ELM-EDGE1 has a correct PBR route map, but client traffic entering the LAN interface still follows the normal routing table toward the Midtown engineering center. Which underlying technical condition best accounts for this evidence?

  1. VRF-Lite intentionally isolates routing tables, and sharing needs a configured route exchange.
  2. The policy is defined but not applied on the interface where the targeted packets enter.
  3. The interface was not placed in the customer VRF, so routing separation is ineffective for that link.
  4. A static policy next hop is being used without confirming that forwarding through it is possible.

Explanation

Correct Answer

B:

The policy is defined but not applied on the interface where the targeted packets enter. That explains the specific symptom at the Elmfield engineering office. A direct corrective action is: Apply the PBR route map to the correct incoming interface with the appropriate policy command.

Incorrect Answers

A:

The observation at the Elmfield engineering office does not point to vrf route leaking; it points to a different condition. The policy is defined but not applied on the interface where the targeted packets enter.

C:

That diagnosis belongs to vrf-lite interface assignment, while the observation at the Elmfield engineering office points to policy-based routing ingress application.

D:

The observation at the Elmfield engineering office does not point to pbr next-hop reachability; it points to a different condition. The policy is defined but not applied on the interface where the targeted packets enter.

Question 221

At the Oakbridge insurance office, a PBR rule directs selected application flows to a backup gateway that has failed, even though the normal destination route remains usable. Which underlying technical condition best accounts for this evidence?

  1. The interface was not placed in the customer VRF, so routing separation is ineffective for that link.
  2. IGP hello/dead timers alone are too slow to detect the observed forwarding-path failure.
  3. VRF-Lite intentionally isolates routing tables, and sharing needs a configured route exchange.
  4. A static policy next hop is being used without confirming that forwarding through it is possible.

Explanation

Correct Answer

D:

This diagnosis fits the symptoms at the Oakbridge insurance office. A static policy next hop is being used without confirming that forwarding through it is possible. The remedial action is: Use verified next-hop availability or tracking so the PBR action does not force traffic to an unreachable gateway.

Incorrect Answers

A:

That diagnosis belongs to vrf-lite interface assignment, while the observation at the Oakbridge insurance office points to pbr next-hop reachability.

B:

The observation at the Oakbridge insurance office does not point to bfd independent fast failure detection; it points to a different condition. A static policy next hop is being used without confirming that forwarding through it is possible.

C:

This diagnoses a different mechanism: VRF-Lite intentionally isolates routing tables, and sharing needs a configured route exchange. The reported symptom at the Oakbridge insurance office instead concerns pbr next-hop reachability.

Question 222

At the Aspen agricultural office, a PBR rule directs selected application flows to a backup gateway that has failed, even though the normal destination route remains usable. Which underlying technical condition best accounts for this evidence?

  1. The policy is defined but not applied on the interface where the targeted packets enter.
  2. The interface was not placed in the customer VRF, so routing separation is ineffective for that link.
  3. A static policy next hop is being used without confirming that forwarding through it is possible.
  4. IGP hello/dead timers alone are too slow to detect the observed forwarding-path failure.

Explanation

Correct Answer

C:

The evidence at the Aspen agricultural office supports this condition: A static policy next hop is being used without confirming that forwarding through it is possible. The associated fix is: Use verified next-hop availability or tracking so the PBR action does not force traffic to an unreachable gateway.

Incorrect Answers

A:

This diagnoses a different mechanism: The policy is defined but not applied on the interface where the targeted packets enter. The reported symptom at the Aspen agricultural office instead concerns pbr next-hop reachability.

B:

That diagnosis belongs to vrf-lite interface assignment, while the observation at the Aspen agricultural office points to pbr next-hop reachability.

D:

This diagnoses a different mechanism: IGP hello/dead timers alone are too slow to detect the observed forwarding-path failure. The reported symptom at the Aspen agricultural office instead concerns pbr next-hop reachability.

Question 223

At the Cedarbrook hospital, a partner-facing interface carries 10.138.0.0/16, but lookup on R-CDR-WAN1 uses the global table instead of the intended customer VRF. Which underlying technical condition best accounts for this evidence?

  1. The interface was not placed in the customer VRF, so routing separation is ineffective for that link.
  2. Mutual redistribution without route-origin controls allows a route to be injected back into its source domain.
  3. The OSPF Hello options differ because one router does not agree that the area is a stub.
  4. The adjacency rejects peer packets because their authentication settings do not agree.

Explanation

Correct Answer

A:

The evidence at the Cedarbrook hospital supports this condition: The interface was not placed in the customer VRF, so routing separation is ineffective for that link. The associated fix is: Associate the partner interface with the correct VRF and restore its address configuration as required.

Incorrect Answers

B:

This diagnoses a different mechanism: Mutual redistribution without route-origin controls allows a route to be injected back into its source domain. The reported symptom at the Cedarbrook hospital instead concerns vrf-lite interface assignment.

C:

That diagnosis belongs to ospf stub area options mismatch, while the observation at the Cedarbrook hospital points to vrf-lite interface assignment.

D:

The observation at the Cedarbrook hospital does not point to eigrp authentication mismatch; it points to a different condition. The interface was not placed in the customer VRF, so routing separation is ineffective for that link.

Question 224

At the Redwood medical campus, a partner-facing interface carries 10.21.0.0/16, but lookup on R-RED-EDGE1 uses the global table instead of the intended customer VRF. Which underlying technical condition best accounts for this evidence?

  1. The interface was not placed in the customer VRF, so routing separation is ineffective for that link.
  2. OSPF inter-area summary generation belongs to the ABR, not an arbitrary internal area router.
  3. An exact-mask prefix-list statement does not match longer component prefixes unless its length conditions allow them.
  4. Authentication settings on the OSPF peers no longer match, so received protocol packets are rejected.

Explanation

Correct Answer

A:

This diagnosis fits the symptoms at the Redwood medical campus. The interface was not placed in the customer VRF, so routing separation is ineffective for that link. The remedial action is: Associate the partner interface with the correct VRF and restore its address configuration as required.

Incorrect Answers

B:

The observation at the Redwood medical campus does not point to ospf area range configured on wrong border; it points to a different condition. The interface was not placed in the customer VRF, so routing separation is ineffective for that link.

C:

This diagnoses a different mechanism: An exact-mask prefix-list statement does not match longer component prefixes unless its length conditions allow them. The reported symptom at the Redwood medical campus instead concerns vrf-lite interface assignment.

D:

That diagnosis belongs to ospf authentication mismatch, while the observation at the Redwood medical campus points to vrf-lite interface assignment.

Question 225

At the Clearwater library district, two isolated VRFs on R-CLW-EDGE1 need access to one shared service at the West archives campus; routes exist in each VRF, but neither can reach the shared destination. Which underlying technical condition best accounts for this evidence?

  1. VRF-Lite intentionally isolates routing tables, and sharing needs a configured route exchange.
  2. The policy is defined but not applied on the interface where the targeted packets enter.
  3. A static policy next hop is being used without confirming that forwarding through it is possible.
  4. IGP hello/dead timers alone are too slow to detect the observed forwarding-path failure.

Explanation

Correct Answer

A:

VRF-Lite intentionally isolates routing tables, and sharing needs a configured route exchange. That explains the specific symptom at the Clearwater library district. A direct corrective action is: Implement narrowly scoped inter-VRF route exchange using supported route leaking or explicit routing between VRFs.

Incorrect Answers

B:

That diagnosis belongs to policy-based routing ingress application, while the observation at the Clearwater library district points to vrf route leaking.

C:

The observation at the Clearwater library district does not point to pbr next-hop reachability; it points to a different condition. VRF-Lite intentionally isolates routing tables, and sharing needs a configured route exchange.

D:

This diagnoses a different mechanism: IGP hello/dead timers alone are too slow to detect the observed forwarding-path failure. The reported symptom at the Clearwater library district instead concerns vrf route leaking.

Question 226

At the Bayview university campus, two isolated VRFs on R-BAY-DIST1 need access to one shared service at the Albany research network; routes exist in each VRF, but neither can reach the shared destination. Which underlying technical condition best accounts for this evidence?

  1. A virtual link cannot use a stub area as its transit area to repair backbone connectivity.
  2. NSSA external routes use type-7 LSAs internally and depend on translation for normal areas.
  3. VRF-Lite intentionally isolates routing tables, and sharing needs a configured route exchange.
  4. Incompatible interface MTU values can prevent successful OSPF database-description exchange.

Explanation

Correct Answer

C:

This diagnosis fits the symptoms at the Bayview university campus. VRF-Lite intentionally isolates routing tables, and sharing needs a configured route exchange. The remedial action is: Implement narrowly scoped inter-VRF route exchange using supported route leaking or explicit routing between VRFs.

Incorrect Answers

A:

The observation at the Bayview university campus does not point to ospf virtual link transit area; it points to a different condition. VRF-Lite intentionally isolates routing tables, and sharing needs a configured route exchange.

B:

This diagnoses a different mechanism: NSSA external routes use type-7 LSAs internally and depend on translation for normal areas. The reported symptom at the Bayview university campus instead concerns vrf route leaking.

D:

The observation at the Bayview university campus does not point to ospf mtu exstart; it points to a different condition. VRF-Lite intentionally isolates routing tables, and sharing needs a configured route exchange.

Question 227

At the Foothill municipal site, R-FOO-DIST1 keeps an IGP neighbor for many seconds after the point-to-point transport toward the North service operations center stops forwarding data. Which underlying technical condition best accounts for this evidence?

  1. A route map used for redistribution has an implicit deny when no permit entry matches the route.
  2. Authentication settings on the OSPF peers no longer match, so received protocol packets are rejected.
  3. EIGRP needs a usable metric for routes introduced from a different source before they can be advertised.
  4. IGP hello/dead timers alone are too slow to detect the observed forwarding-path failure.

Explanation

Correct Answer

D:

This diagnosis fits the symptoms at the Foothill municipal site. IGP hello/dead timers alone are too slow to detect the observed forwarding-path failure. The remedial action is: Enable and tune supported BFD sessions on the routing adjacencies that need rapid forwarding failure detection.

Incorrect Answers

A:

That diagnosis belongs to route-map implicit deny, while the observation at the Foothill municipal site points to bfd independent fast failure detection.

B:

The observation at the Foothill municipal site does not point to ospf authentication mismatch; it points to a different condition. IGP hello/dead timers alone are too slow to detect the observed forwarding-path failure.

C:

This diagnoses a different mechanism: EIGRP needs a usable metric for routes introduced from a different source before they can be advertised. The reported symptom at the Foothill municipal site instead concerns bfd independent fast failure detection.

Question 228

At the Highland government office, R-HIG-RT1 keeps an IGP neighbor for many seconds after the point-to-point transport toward the Capital public records site stops forwarding data. Which underlying technical condition best accounts for this evidence?

  1. The static route has a lower default administrative distance and displaces the intended dynamic path.
  2. BGP local preference is examined before AS-path length, and the present attributes favor the wrong exit.
  3. The OSPF Hello options differ because one router does not agree that the area is a stub.
  4. IGP hello/dead timers alone are too slow to detect the observed forwarding-path failure.

Explanation

Correct Answer

D:

IGP hello/dead timers alone are too slow to detect the observed forwarding-path failure. That explains the specific symptom at the Highland government office. A direct corrective action is: Enable and tune supported BFD sessions on the routing adjacencies that need rapid forwarding failure detection.

Incorrect Answers

A:

This diagnoses a different mechanism: The static route has a lower default administrative distance and displaces the intended dynamic path. The reported symptom at the Highland government office instead concerns bfd independent fast failure detection.

B:

That diagnosis belongs to bgp local preference path policy, while the observation at the Highland government office points to bfd independent fast failure detection.

C:

The observation at the Highland government office does not point to ospf stub area options mismatch; it points to a different condition. IGP hello/dead timers alone are too slow to detect the observed forwarding-path failure.

Question 229

At the Brookstone distribution branch, EIGRP hellos pass across the transit link, yet R-BRK-EDGE1 never forms a neighbor with R-NEW-EDGE2; the peers use different EIGRP AS numbers. Which underlying technical condition best accounts for this evidence?

  1. The leaf is participating in a query domain larger than its topology role requires.
  2. The EIGRP route metric reflects interface delay as well as bandwidth under standard metric settings.
  3. Passive-interface suppresses routing-neighbor discovery where an EIGRP adjacency is required.
  4. EIGRP peers in different AS configurations will not establish the intended neighbor relationship.

Explanation

Correct Answer

D:

The evidence at the Brookstone distribution branch supports this condition: EIGRP peers in different AS configurations will not establish the intended neighbor relationship. The associated fix is: Configure matching EIGRP autonomous-system values for the participating adjacency.

Incorrect Answers

A:

The observation at the Brookstone distribution branch does not point to eigrp query scope using stub; it points to a different condition. EIGRP peers in different AS configurations will not establish the intended neighbor relationship.

B:

This diagnoses a different mechanism: The EIGRP route metric reflects interface delay as well as bandwidth under standard metric settings. The reported symptom at the Brookstone distribution branch instead concerns eigrp as mismatch.

C:

That diagnosis belongs to eigrp passive-interface adjacency, while the observation at the Brookstone distribution branch points to eigrp as mismatch.

Question 230

At the Silverstream data center, EIGRP hellos pass across the transit link, yet R-SIL-PE1 never forms a neighbor with R-RIV-PE2; the peers use different EIGRP AS numbers. Which underlying technical condition best accounts for this evidence?

  1. EIGRP peers in different AS configurations will not establish the intended neighbor relationship.
  2. The leaf is participating in a query domain larger than its topology role requires.
  3. Default EIGRP forwarding does not use the desired unequal-cost feasible alternate without appropriate variance.
  4. The EIGRP route metric reflects interface delay as well as bandwidth under standard metric settings.

Explanation

Correct Answer

A:

This diagnosis fits the symptoms at the Silverstream data center. EIGRP peers in different AS configurations will not establish the intended neighbor relationship. The remedial action is: Configure matching EIGRP autonomous-system values for the participating adjacency.

Incorrect Answers

B:

The observation at the Silverstream data center does not point to eigrp query scope using stub; it points to a different condition. EIGRP peers in different AS configurations will not establish the intended neighbor relationship.

C:

This diagnoses a different mechanism: Default EIGRP forwarding does not use the desired unequal-cost feasible alternate without appropriate variance. The reported symptom at the Silverstream data center instead concerns eigrp as mismatch.

D:

That diagnosis belongs to eigrp delay in composite metric, while the observation at the Silverstream data center points to eigrp as mismatch.