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 29

Question 280

At the Bluewater clinical network, an MP-BGP VPNv4 route arrives at a PE, but it is absent from the intended customer VRF at the Central imaging hub. Which underlying technical condition best accounts for this evidence?

  1. The penultimate router can remove the outer transport label as an intended MPLS behavior.
  2. The destination VRF's route-target import policy does not match the route's export community.
  3. The egress VPN label is associated with a specific VRF forwarding action, not a global-table lookup.
  4. An MPLS VPN label stack may serve transport and VPN forwarding purposes at different stages.

Explanation

Correct Answer

B:

The destination VRF's route-target import policy does not match the route's export community. That explains the specific symptom at the Bluewater clinical network. A direct corrective action is: Align the exporting and importing route targets for that customer VPN without admitting other tenants.

Incorrect Answers

A:

The observation at the Bluewater clinical network does not point to mpls penultimate-hop popping; it points to a different condition. The destination VRF's route-target import policy does not match the route's export community.

C:

That diagnosis belongs to mpls vpn per-vrf forwarding lookup, while the observation at the Bluewater clinical network points to vpnv4 route-target mismatch.

D:

The observation at the Bluewater clinical network does not point to mpls transport and service label stack; it points to a different condition. The destination VRF's route-target import policy does not match the route's export community.

Question 281

At the Harborview media campus, a PE advertises identical customer IPv4 prefixes from separate VPNs; an engineer expects changing only the route distinguisher to control cross-VRF import. Which underlying technical condition best accounts for this evidence?

  1. The IGP provides IP reachability but no working LDP control-plane adjacency supplies expected label bindings.
  2. An available VPNv4 route is not reaching the CE through the chosen PE–CE routing mechanism.
  3. An IP route alone does not guarantee an MPLS label-switched path is available in the core.
  4. An RD distinguishes overlapping VPNv4 prefixes but does not itself authorize VRF route import.

Explanation

Correct Answer

D:

This diagnosis fits the symptoms at the Harborview media campus. An RD distinguishes overlapping VPNv4 prefixes but does not itself authorize VRF route import. The remedial action is: Use route targets for import/export policy and reserve route distinguishers for VPNv4 prefix uniqueness.

Incorrect Answers

A:

That diagnosis belongs to ldp neighbor state on the core link, while the observation at the Harborview media campus points to route distinguisher versus route target.

B:

The observation at the Harborview media campus does not point to pe to ce route exchange; it points to a different condition. An RD distinguishes overlapping VPNv4 prefixes but does not itself authorize VRF route import.

C:

This diagnoses a different mechanism: An IP route alone does not guarantee an MPLS label-switched path is available in the core. The reported symptom at the Harborview media campus instead concerns route distinguisher versus route target.

Question 282

At the Ironwood training campus, a PE advertises identical customer IPv4 prefixes from separate VPNs; an engineer expects changing only the route distinguisher to control cross-VRF import. Which underlying technical condition best accounts for this evidence?

  1. The IGP provides IP reachability but no working LDP control-plane adjacency supplies expected label bindings.
  2. The destination VRF's route-target import policy does not match the route's export community.
  3. The egress VPN label is associated with a specific VRF forwarding action, not a global-table lookup.
  4. An RD distinguishes overlapping VPNv4 prefixes but does not itself authorize VRF route import.

Explanation

Correct Answer

D:

An RD distinguishes overlapping VPNv4 prefixes but does not itself authorize VRF route import. That explains the specific symptom at the Ironwood training campus. A direct corrective action is: Use route targets for import/export policy and reserve route distinguishers for VPNv4 prefix uniqueness.

Incorrect Answers

A:

This diagnoses a different mechanism: The IGP provides IP reachability but no working LDP control-plane adjacency supplies expected label bindings. The reported symptom at the Ironwood training campus instead concerns route distinguisher versus route target.

B:

That diagnosis belongs to vpnv4 route-target mismatch, while the observation at the Ironwood training campus points to route distinguisher versus route target.

C:

The observation at the Ironwood training campus does not point to mpls vpn per-vrf forwarding lookup; it points to a different condition. An RD distinguishes overlapping VPNv4 prefixes but does not itself authorize VRF route import.

Question 283

At the Hillcrest research lab, a PE has the customer's VPNv4 routes in MP-BGP but the attached CE never learns the remote site's subnet. Which underlying technical condition best accounts for this evidence?

  1. The penultimate router can remove the outer transport label as an intended MPLS behavior.
  2. An MPLS VPN label stack may serve transport and VPN forwarding purposes at different stages.
  3. An available VPNv4 route is not reaching the CE through the chosen PE–CE routing mechanism.
  4. The egress VPN label is associated with a specific VRF forwarding action, not a global-table lookup.

Explanation

Correct Answer

C:

This diagnosis fits the symptoms at the Hillcrest research lab. An available VPNv4 route is not reaching the CE through the chosen PE–CE routing mechanism. The remedial action is: Configure or repair the planned PE–CE route advertisement within the customer VRF.

Incorrect Answers

A:

The observation at the Hillcrest research lab does not point to mpls penultimate-hop popping; it points to a different condition. An available VPNv4 route is not reaching the CE through the chosen PE–CE routing mechanism.

B:

This diagnoses a different mechanism: An MPLS VPN label stack may serve transport and VPN forwarding purposes at different stages. The reported symptom at the Hillcrest research lab instead concerns pe to ce route exchange.

D:

The observation at the Hillcrest research lab does not point to mpls vpn per-vrf forwarding lookup; it points to a different condition. An available VPNv4 route is not reaching the CE through the chosen PE–CE routing mechanism.

Question 284

At the Northport logistics site, a PE has the customer's VPNv4 routes in MP-BGP but the attached CE never learns the remote site's subnet. Which underlying technical condition best accounts for this evidence?

  1. An RD distinguishes overlapping VPNv4 prefixes but does not itself authorize VRF route import.
  2. An available VPNv4 route is not reaching the CE through the chosen PE–CE routing mechanism.
  3. The egress VPN label is associated with a specific VRF forwarding action, not a global-table lookup.
  4. The penultimate router can remove the outer transport label as an intended MPLS behavior.

Explanation

Correct Answer

B:

The evidence at the Northport logistics site supports this condition: An available VPNv4 route is not reaching the CE through the chosen PE–CE routing mechanism. The associated fix is: Configure or repair the planned PE–CE route advertisement within the customer VRF.

Incorrect Answers

A:

That diagnosis belongs to route distinguisher versus route target, while the observation at the Northport logistics site points to pe to ce route exchange.

C:

This diagnoses a different mechanism: The egress VPN label is associated with a specific VRF forwarding action, not a global-table lookup. The reported symptom at the Northport logistics site instead concerns pe to ce route exchange.

D:

That diagnosis belongs to mpls penultimate-hop popping, while the observation at the Northport logistics site points to pe to ce route exchange.

Question 285

At the Elmfield engineering office, an egress PE receives a valid inner VPN label, but customer traffic is forwarded using the wrong route-table expectation. Which underlying technical condition best accounts for this evidence?

  1. An available VPNv4 route is not reaching the CE through the chosen PE–CE routing mechanism.
  2. The destination VRF's route-target import policy does not match the route's export community.
  3. The egress VPN label is associated with a specific VRF forwarding action, not a global-table lookup.
  4. An IP route alone does not guarantee an MPLS label-switched path is available in the core.

Explanation

Correct Answer

C:

The evidence at the Elmfield engineering office supports this condition: The egress VPN label is associated with a specific VRF forwarding action, not a global-table lookup. The associated fix is: Verify that the inner service label selects the intended VPN forwarding context and CE-facing path.

Incorrect Answers

A:

This diagnoses a different mechanism: An available VPNv4 route is not reaching the CE through the chosen PE–CE routing mechanism. The reported symptom at the Elmfield engineering office instead concerns mpls vpn per-vrf forwarding lookup.

B:

That diagnosis belongs to vpnv4 route-target mismatch, while the observation at the Elmfield engineering office points to mpls vpn per-vrf forwarding lookup.

D:

This diagnoses a different mechanism: An IP route alone does not guarantee an MPLS label-switched path is available in the core. The reported symptom at the Elmfield engineering office instead concerns mpls vpn per-vrf forwarding lookup.

Question 286

At the Granite manufacturing plant, an egress PE receives a valid inner VPN label, but customer traffic is forwarded using the wrong route-table expectation. Which underlying technical condition best accounts for this evidence?

  1. An MPLS VPN label stack may serve transport and VPN forwarding purposes at different stages.
  2. The egress VPN label is associated with a specific VRF forwarding action, not a global-table lookup.
  3. An available VPNv4 route is not reaching the CE through the chosen PE–CE routing mechanism.
  4. The IGP provides IP reachability but no working LDP control-plane adjacency supplies expected label bindings.

Explanation

Correct Answer

B:

The egress VPN label is associated with a specific VRF forwarding action, not a global-table lookup. That explains the specific symptom at the Granite manufacturing plant. A direct corrective action is: Verify that the inner service label selects the intended VPN forwarding context and CE-facing path.

Incorrect Answers

A:

The observation at the Granite manufacturing plant does not point to mpls transport and service label stack; it points to a different condition. The egress VPN label is associated with a specific VRF forwarding action, not a global-table lookup.

C:

That diagnosis belongs to pe to ce route exchange, while the observation at the Granite manufacturing plant points to mpls vpn per-vrf forwarding lookup.

D:

The observation at the Granite manufacturing plant does not point to ldp neighbor state on the core link; it points to a different condition. The egress VPN label is associated with a specific VRF forwarding action, not a global-table lookup.

Question 287

At the Aspen agricultural office, a DMVPN spoke can ping the hub's transport address but its tunnel never appears in the hub NHRP registration table. Which underlying technical condition best accounts for this evidence?

  1. NHRP registration messages are rejected because peers do not agree on their authentication secret.
  2. A fixed GRE destination prevents the tunnel from supporting arbitrary on-demand spoke destinations.
  3. Underlay IP reachability is present, but the spoke is not registering its tunnel-to-NBMA mapping with the correct NHRP server.
  4. The NHRP tunnel interfaces are not configured to participate in the same logical NHRP network.

Explanation

Correct Answer

C:

Underlay IP reachability is present, but the spoke is not registering its tunnel-to-NBMA mapping with the correct NHRP server. That explains the specific symptom at the Aspen agricultural office. A direct corrective action is: Correct the spoke's configured NHRP next-hop server and registration mapping for the hub.

Incorrect Answers

A:

That diagnosis belongs to dmvpn nhrp authentication mismatch, while the observation at the Aspen agricultural office points to dmvpn spoke registration to hub.

B:

The observation at the Aspen agricultural office does not point to dmvpn mgre endpoint capability; it points to a different condition. Underlay IP reachability is present, but the spoke is not registering its tunnel-to-NBMA mapping with the correct NHRP server.

D:

That diagnosis belongs to dmvpn nhrp network id mismatch, while the observation at the Aspen agricultural office points to dmvpn spoke registration to hub.

Question 288

At the Oakbridge insurance office, a DMVPN spoke can ping the hub's transport address but its tunnel never appears in the hub NHRP registration table. Which underlying technical condition best accounts for this evidence?

  1. A fixed GRE destination prevents the tunnel from supporting arbitrary on-demand spoke destinations.
  2. NHRP registration messages are rejected because peers do not agree on their authentication secret.
  3. NHRP messages are targeted at an obsolete next-hop server address even though the underlay works.
  4. Underlay IP reachability is present, but the spoke is not registering its tunnel-to-NBMA mapping with the correct NHRP server.

Explanation

Correct Answer

D:

Underlay IP reachability is present, but the spoke is not registering its tunnel-to-NBMA mapping with the correct NHRP server. That explains the specific symptom at the Oakbridge insurance office. A direct corrective action is: Correct the spoke's configured NHRP next-hop server and registration mapping for the hub.

Incorrect Answers

A:

This diagnoses a different mechanism: A fixed GRE destination prevents the tunnel from supporting arbitrary on-demand spoke destinations. The reported symptom at the Oakbridge insurance office instead concerns dmvpn spoke registration to hub.

B:

That diagnosis belongs to dmvpn nhrp authentication mismatch, while the observation at the Oakbridge insurance office points to dmvpn spoke registration to hub.

C:

The observation at the Oakbridge insurance office does not point to dmvpn spoke next-hop server address; it points to a different condition. Underlay IP reachability is present, but the spoke is not registering its tunnel-to-NBMA mapping with the correct NHRP server.

Question 289

At the Redwood medical campus, two DMVPN devices share a reachable underlay yet their NHRP configuration reports incompatible network identifiers. Which underlying technical condition best accounts for this evidence?

  1. The NHRP tunnel interfaces are not configured to participate in the same logical NHRP network.
  2. NHRP registration messages are rejected because peers do not agree on their authentication secret.
  3. The origin spoke has not obtained the peer resolution needed to build an appropriate direct path.
  4. Underlay IP reachability is present, but the spoke is not registering its tunnel-to-NBMA mapping with the correct NHRP server.

Explanation

Correct Answer

A:

The evidence at the Redwood medical campus supports this condition: The NHRP tunnel interfaces are not configured to participate in the same logical NHRP network. The associated fix is: Set matching NHRP network identifiers on tunnel interfaces participating in the same DMVPN cloud.

Incorrect Answers

B:

This diagnoses a different mechanism: NHRP registration messages are rejected because peers do not agree on their authentication secret. The reported symptom at the Redwood medical campus instead concerns dmvpn nhrp network id mismatch.

C:

That diagnosis belongs to dmvpn spoke-to-spoke nhrp resolution, while the observation at the Redwood medical campus points to dmvpn nhrp network id mismatch.

D:

The observation at the Redwood medical campus does not point to dmvpn spoke registration to hub; it points to a different condition. The NHRP tunnel interfaces are not configured to participate in the same logical NHRP network.

Question 290

At the Cedarbrook hospital, two DMVPN devices share a reachable underlay yet their NHRP configuration reports incompatible network identifiers. Which underlying technical condition best accounts for this evidence?

  1. The NHRP tunnel interfaces are not configured to participate in the same logical NHRP network.
  2. Underlay IP reachability is present, but the spoke is not registering its tunnel-to-NBMA mapping with the correct NHRP server.
  3. Hub-side next-hop rewriting prevents the source spoke from resolving the actual destination spoke.
  4. A fixed GRE destination prevents the tunnel from supporting arbitrary on-demand spoke destinations.

Explanation

Correct Answer

A:

This diagnosis fits the symptoms at the Cedarbrook hospital. The NHRP tunnel interfaces are not configured to participate in the same logical NHRP network. The remedial action is: Set matching NHRP network identifiers on tunnel interfaces participating in the same DMVPN cloud.

Incorrect Answers

B:

The observation at the Cedarbrook hospital does not point to dmvpn spoke registration to hub; it points to a different condition. The NHRP tunnel interfaces are not configured to participate in the same logical NHRP network.

C:

This diagnoses a different mechanism: Hub-side next-hop rewriting prevents the source spoke from resolving the actual destination spoke. The reported symptom at the Cedarbrook hospital instead concerns dmvpn nhrp network id mismatch.

D:

That diagnosis belongs to dmvpn mgre endpoint capability, while the observation at the Cedarbrook hospital points to dmvpn nhrp network id mismatch.