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 42

Question 410

At the Lakeside transit hub, OSPF routes enter EIGRP through R-LAK-CORE1 and are later returned to OSPF at the East depot network, producing unstable preferred paths to 10.32.0.0/16. After remediation, which observation would most directly demonstrate the intended result?

  1. The intended prefix appears as the expected external route while unrelated partner prefixes stay absent.
  2. The ABR advertises the intended inter-area summary with correct reachability for its component networks.
  3. Routes retain an origin tag and the return redistribution point rejects already-imported routes.
  4. Each prefix covered by the aggregate has a valid forwarding path, or the aggregate is appropriately withdrawn.

Explanation

Correct Answer

C:

This tests the exact behavior that was failing at the Lakeside transit hub. Routes retain an origin tag and the return redistribution point rejects already-imported routes. The change supporting that outcome is: Tag redistributed routes at entry and filter those tags from re-entering their origin protocol.

Incorrect Answers

A:

That test could pass while the specific fault remains. The intended prefix appears as the expected external route while unrelated partner prefixes stay absent. It would not establish the required outcome for redistribution loop route tagging at the Lakeside transit hub.

B:

The result addresses ospf area range configured on wrong border, not the observed fault at the Lakeside transit hub. The decisive outcome is different: Routes retain an origin tag and the return redistribution point rejects already-imported routes.

D:

That test could pass while the specific fault remains. Each prefix covered by the aggregate has a valid forwarding path, or the aggregate is appropriately withdrawn. It would not establish the required outcome for redistribution loop route tagging at the Lakeside transit hub.

Question 411

At the Pinecrest freight terminal, R-PIN-WAN1 can see connected routes in its table, but EIGRP neighbors never learn them after redistribution is enabled without a metric. After remediation, which observation would most directly demonstrate the intended result?

  1. Neighbors learn only the intended connected prefixes with a valid composite metric.
  2. The ABR advertises the intended inter-area summary with correct reachability for its component networks.
  3. The intended prefix appears as the expected external route while unrelated partner prefixes stay absent.
  4. Routes retain an origin tag and the return redistribution point rejects already-imported routes.

Explanation

Correct Answer

A:

This tests the exact behavior that was failing at the Pinecrest freight terminal. Neighbors learn only the intended connected prefixes with a valid composite metric. The change supporting that outcome is: Provide an explicit valid EIGRP seed metric for redistributed routes or configure an appropriate default metric.

Incorrect Answers

B:

That test could pass while the specific fault remains. The ABR advertises the intended inter-area summary with correct reachability for its component networks. It would not establish the required outcome for seed metric on eigrp redistribution at the Pinecrest freight terminal.

C:

The result addresses route-map match direction in redistribution, not the observed fault at the Pinecrest freight terminal. The decisive outcome is different: Neighbors learn only the intended connected prefixes with a valid composite metric.

D:

This validates an unrelated control at the Pinecrest freight terminal: Routes retain an origin tag and the return redistribution point rejects already-imported routes. It would not demonstrate correction of seed metric on eigrp redistribution.

Question 412

At the Westlake utility network, R-WLK-EDGE1 can see connected routes in its table, but EIGRP neighbors never learn them after redistribution is enabled without a metric. After remediation, which observation would most directly demonstrate the intended result?

  1. The intended prefix appears as the expected external route while unrelated partner prefixes stay absent.
  2. Routes retain an origin tag and the return redistribution point rejects already-imported routes.
  3. Neighbors learn only the intended connected prefixes with a valid composite metric.
  4. Each prefix covered by the aggregate has a valid forwarding path, or the aggregate is appropriately withdrawn.

Explanation

Correct Answer

C:

A meaningful acceptance check at the Westlake utility network should verify the actual forwarding or control-plane outcome. Neighbors learn only the intended connected prefixes with a valid composite metric.

Incorrect Answers

A:

The result addresses route-map match direction in redistribution, not the observed fault at the Westlake utility network. The decisive outcome is different: Neighbors learn only the intended connected prefixes with a valid composite metric.

B:

This validates an unrelated control at the Westlake utility network: Routes retain an origin tag and the return redistribution point rejects already-imported routes. It would not demonstrate correction of seed metric on eigrp redistribution.

D:

The result addresses summary black hole from missing component, not the observed fault at the Westlake utility network. The decisive outcome is different: Neighbors learn only the intended connected prefixes with a valid composite metric.

Question 413

At the Bluewater clinical network, a route map on R-BLU-PE1 was intended to admit a partner prefix into OSPF, but it matches a different address-family prefix list. After remediation, which observation would most directly demonstrate the intended result?

  1. Neighbors learn only the intended connected prefixes with a valid composite metric.
  2. The ABR advertises the intended inter-area summary with correct reachability for its component networks.
  3. Each prefix covered by the aggregate has a valid forwarding path, or the aggregate is appropriately withdrawn.
  4. The intended prefix appears as the expected external route while unrelated partner prefixes stay absent.

Explanation

Correct Answer

D:

A meaningful acceptance check at the Bluewater clinical network should verify the actual forwarding or control-plane outcome. The intended prefix appears as the expected external route while unrelated partner prefixes stay absent.

Incorrect Answers

A:

That test could pass while the specific fault remains. Neighbors learn only the intended connected prefixes with a valid composite metric. It would not establish the required outcome for route-map match direction in redistribution at the Bluewater clinical network.

B:

The result addresses ospf area range configured on wrong border, not the observed fault at the Bluewater clinical network. The decisive outcome is different: The intended prefix appears as the expected external route while unrelated partner prefixes stay absent.

C:

This validates an unrelated control at the Bluewater clinical network: Each prefix covered by the aggregate has a valid forwarding path, or the aggregate is appropriately withdrawn. It would not demonstrate correction of route-map match direction in redistribution.

Question 414

At the Cedarfield retail branch, a route map on R-CED-BR1 was intended to admit a partner prefix into OSPF, but it matches a different address-family prefix list. After remediation, which observation would most directly demonstrate the intended result?

  1. The intended prefix appears as the expected external route while unrelated partner prefixes stay absent.
  2. Routes learned from one client are appropriately reflected to other clients without a full mesh.
  3. The recovered dynamic route is installed, while the higher-distance static route becomes active only when the preferred path disappears.
  4. A VRF-specific route lookup shows the connected network under the correct VRF, not only in global routing.

Explanation

Correct Answer

A:

This tests the exact behavior that was failing at the Cedarfield retail branch. The intended prefix appears as the expected external route while unrelated partner prefixes stay absent. The change supporting that outcome is: Bind the route-map match statement to the correct prefix-list for the redistributed address family.

Incorrect Answers

B:

That test could pass while the specific fault remains. Routes learned from one client are appropriately reflected to other clients without a full mesh. It would not establish the required outcome for route-map match direction in redistribution at the Cedarfield retail branch.

C:

The result addresses floating static backup route, not the observed fault at the Cedarfield retail branch. The decisive outcome is different: The intended prefix appears as the expected external route while unrelated partner prefixes stay absent.

D:

This validates an unrelated control at the Cedarfield retail branch: A VRF-specific route lookup shows the connected network under the correct VRF, not only in global routing. It would not demonstrate correction of route-map match direction in redistribution.

Question 415

At the Ironwood training campus, R-IRN-RT1 originates an aggregate toward the Central learning center; one subnet inside the summary was removed locally, yet traffic for that subnet keeps arriving and is discarded. After remediation, which observation would most directly demonstrate the intended result?

  1. Only the authorized shared-service prefixes appear and work across the VRF boundary.
  2. Policy-matched traffic falls back or changes next hop when the specified gateway becomes unavailable.
  3. The ABR advertises the intended inter-area summary with correct reachability for its component networks.
  4. Each prefix covered by the aggregate has a valid forwarding path, or the aggregate is appropriately withdrawn.

Explanation

Correct Answer

D:

The stated result demonstrates that the specific condition at the Ironwood training campus has been corrected. Each prefix covered by the aggregate has a valid forwarding path, or the aggregate is appropriately withdrawn.

Incorrect Answers

A:

The result addresses vrf route leaking, not the observed fault at the Ironwood training campus. The decisive outcome is different: Each prefix covered by the aggregate has a valid forwarding path, or the aggregate is appropriately withdrawn.

B:

This validates an unrelated control at the Ironwood training campus: Policy-matched traffic falls back or changes next hop when the specified gateway becomes unavailable. It would not demonstrate correction of summary black hole from missing component.

C:

That test could pass while the specific fault remains. The ABR advertises the intended inter-area summary with correct reachability for its component networks. It would not establish the required outcome for summary black hole from missing component at the Ironwood training campus.

Question 416

At the Harborview media campus, R-HAR-DIST1 originates an aggregate toward the Inland content hub; one subnet inside the summary was removed locally, yet traffic for that subnet keeps arriving and is discarded. After remediation, which observation would most directly demonstrate the intended result?

  1. Only the authorized shared-service prefixes appear and work across the VRF boundary.
  2. The route type in the routing table matches OSPF path-preference rules.
  3. The authorized /24 is accepted while unrelated longer and shorter prefixes remain filtered.
  4. Each prefix covered by the aggregate has a valid forwarding path, or the aggregate is appropriately withdrawn.

Explanation

Correct Answer

D:

A meaningful acceptance check at the Harborview media campus should verify the actual forwarding or control-plane outcome. Each prefix covered by the aggregate has a valid forwarding path, or the aggregate is appropriately withdrawn.

Incorrect Answers

A:

That test could pass while the specific fault remains. Only the authorized shared-service prefixes appear and work across the VRF boundary. It would not establish the required outcome for summary black hole from missing component at the Harborview media campus.

B:

The result addresses ospf intra-area route preference, not the observed fault at the Harborview media campus. The decisive outcome is different: Each prefix covered by the aggregate has a valid forwarding path, or the aggregate is appropriately withdrawn.

C:

This validates an unrelated control at the Harborview media campus: The authorized /24 is accepted while unrelated longer and shorter prefixes remain filtered. It would not demonstrate correction of summary black hole from missing component.

Question 417

At the Northport logistics site, engineers add an OSPF area-range command to an internal router, but the intended inter-area summary never appears at the ABR facing the Richmond distribution center. After remediation, which observation would most directly demonstrate the intended result?

  1. The installed route and its administrative-distance value match the approved eBGP-versus-OSPF preference.
  2. The routing table installs the permitted unequal-cost feasible paths with expected ratios.
  3. The OSPF adjacency reaches Full with no authentication failures.
  4. The ABR advertises the intended inter-area summary with correct reachability for its component networks.

Explanation

Correct Answer

D:

This tests the exact behavior that was failing at the Northport logistics site. The ABR advertises the intended inter-area summary with correct reachability for its component networks. The change supporting that outcome is: Configure the summary at the appropriate OSPF area border router for that source area.

Incorrect Answers

A:

This validates an unrelated control at the Northport logistics site: The installed route and its administrative-distance value match the approved eBGP-versus-OSPF preference. It would not demonstrate correction of ospf area range configured on wrong border.

B:

That test could pass while the specific fault remains. The routing table installs the permitted unequal-cost feasible paths with expected ratios. It would not establish the required outcome for ospf area range configured on wrong border at the Northport logistics site.

C:

The result addresses ospf authentication mismatch, not the observed fault at the Northport logistics site. The decisive outcome is different: The ABR advertises the intended inter-area summary with correct reachability for its component networks.

Question 418

At the Hillcrest research lab, engineers add an OSPF area-range command to an internal router, but the intended inter-area summary never appears at the ABR facing the Coastal compute center. After remediation, which observation would most directly demonstrate the intended result?

  1. The ABR advertises the intended inter-area summary with correct reachability for its component networks.
  2. The route type in the routing table matches OSPF path-preference rules.
  3. The selected successor and displayed metric match the planned delay policy.
  4. OSPF neighbors reach Full and the intended stub-area LSAs are present.

Explanation

Correct Answer

A:

The stated result demonstrates that the specific condition at the Hillcrest research lab has been corrected. The ABR advertises the intended inter-area summary with correct reachability for its component networks.

Incorrect Answers

B:

This validates an unrelated control at the Hillcrest research lab: The route type in the routing table matches OSPF path-preference rules. It would not demonstrate correction of ospf area range configured on wrong border.

C:

That test could pass while the specific fault remains. The selected successor and displayed metric match the planned delay policy. It would not establish the required outcome for ospf area range configured on wrong border at the Hillcrest research lab.

D:

The result addresses ospf stub area options mismatch, not the observed fault at the Hillcrest research lab. The decisive outcome is different: The ABR advertises the intended inter-area summary with correct reachability for its component networks.

Question 419

At the Granite manufacturing plant, R-GRA-PE1 has a correct PBR route map, but client traffic entering the LAN interface still follows the normal routing table toward the Meridian corporate campus. After remediation, which observation would most directly demonstrate the intended result?

  1. The BFD session transitions down promptly on a simulated forwarding failure and the routing neighbor reacts.
  2. A VRF-specific route lookup shows the connected network under the correct VRF, not only in global routing.
  3. Only the authorized shared-service prefixes appear and work across the VRF boundary.
  4. Matching packets use the policy-selected next hop while nonmatching traffic keeps normal forwarding.

Explanation

Correct Answer

D:

A meaningful acceptance check at the Granite manufacturing plant should verify the actual forwarding or control-plane outcome. Matching packets use the policy-selected next hop while nonmatching traffic keeps normal forwarding.

Incorrect Answers

A:

That test could pass while the specific fault remains. The BFD session transitions down promptly on a simulated forwarding failure and the routing neighbor reacts. It would not establish the required outcome for policy-based routing ingress application at the Granite manufacturing plant.

B:

The result addresses vrf-lite interface assignment, not the observed fault at the Granite manufacturing plant. The decisive outcome is different: Matching packets use the policy-selected next hop while nonmatching traffic keeps normal forwarding.

C:

This validates an unrelated control at the Granite manufacturing plant: Only the authorized shared-service prefixes appear and work across the VRF boundary. It would not demonstrate correction of policy-based routing ingress application.

Question 420

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. After remediation, which observation would most directly demonstrate the intended result?

  1. A VRF-specific route lookup shows the connected network under the correct VRF, not only in global routing.
  2. Matching packets use the policy-selected next hop while nonmatching traffic keeps normal forwarding.
  3. Policy-matched traffic falls back or changes next hop when the specified gateway becomes unavailable.
  4. Only the authorized shared-service prefixes appear and work across the VRF boundary.

Explanation

Correct Answer

B:

A meaningful acceptance check at the Elmfield engineering office should verify the actual forwarding or control-plane outcome. Matching packets use the policy-selected next hop while nonmatching traffic keeps normal forwarding.

Incorrect Answers

A:

This validates an unrelated control at the Elmfield engineering office: A VRF-specific route lookup shows the connected network under the correct VRF, not only in global routing. It would not demonstrate correction of policy-based routing ingress application.

C:

The result addresses pbr next-hop reachability, not the observed fault at the Elmfield engineering office. The decisive outcome is different: Matching packets use the policy-selected next hop while nonmatching traffic keeps normal forwarding.

D:

This validates an unrelated control at the Elmfield engineering office: Only the authorized shared-service prefixes appear and work across the VRF boundary. It would not demonstrate correction of policy-based routing ingress application.