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 43

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.

Question 421

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. 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. Policy-matched traffic falls back or changes next hop when the specified gateway becomes unavailable.
  3. Matching packets use the policy-selected next hop while nonmatching traffic keeps normal forwarding.
  4. The BFD session transitions down promptly on a simulated forwarding failure and the routing neighbor reacts.

Explanation

Correct Answer

B:

This tests the exact behavior that was failing at the Oakbridge insurance office. Policy-matched traffic falls back or changes next hop when the specified gateway becomes unavailable. The change supporting that outcome is: Use verified next-hop availability or tracking so the PBR action does not force traffic to an unreachable gateway.

Incorrect Answers

A:

The result addresses vrf-lite interface assignment, not the observed fault at the Oakbridge insurance office. The decisive outcome is different: Policy-matched traffic falls back or changes next hop when the specified gateway becomes unavailable.

C:

That test could pass while the specific fault remains. Matching packets use the policy-selected next hop while nonmatching traffic keeps normal forwarding. It would not establish the required outcome for pbr next-hop reachability at the Oakbridge insurance office.

D:

The result addresses bfd independent fast failure detection, not the observed fault at the Oakbridge insurance office. The decisive outcome is different: Policy-matched traffic falls back or changes next hop when the specified gateway becomes unavailable.

Question 422

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. 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. Policy-matched traffic falls back or changes next hop when the specified gateway becomes unavailable.
  3. Only the authorized shared-service prefixes appear and work across the VRF boundary.
  4. A VRF-specific route lookup shows the connected network under the correct VRF, not only in global routing.

Explanation

Correct Answer

B:

The stated result demonstrates that the specific condition at the Aspen agricultural office has been corrected. Policy-matched traffic falls back or changes next hop when the specified gateway becomes unavailable.

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 pbr next-hop reachability at the Aspen agricultural office.

C:

This validates an unrelated control at the Aspen agricultural office: Only the authorized shared-service prefixes appear and work across the VRF boundary. It would not demonstrate correction of pbr next-hop reachability.

D:

That test could pass while the specific fault remains. A VRF-specific route lookup shows the connected network under the correct VRF, not only in global routing. It would not establish the required outcome for pbr next-hop reachability at the Aspen agricultural office.

Question 423

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. 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. The intended prefix appears as the expected external route while unrelated partner prefixes stay absent.
  3. The transit EIGRP neighbor forms while user-facing access interfaces remain passive.
  4. All relevant internal routers select the intended egress, not just the locally tuned router.

Explanation

Correct Answer

A:

This tests the exact behavior that was failing at the Cedarbrook hospital. A VRF-specific route lookup shows the connected network under the correct VRF, not only in global routing. The change supporting that outcome is: Associate the partner interface with the correct VRF and restore its address configuration as required.

Incorrect Answers

B:

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 vrf-lite interface assignment at the Cedarbrook hospital.

C:

The result addresses eigrp passive-interface adjacency, not the observed fault at the Cedarbrook hospital. The decisive outcome is different: A VRF-specific route lookup shows the connected network under the correct VRF, not only in global routing.

D:

This validates an unrelated control at the Cedarbrook hospital: All relevant internal routers select the intended egress, not just the locally tuned router. It would not demonstrate correction of vrf-lite interface assignment.

Question 424

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. 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 OSPF adjacency reaches Full with no authentication failures.
  3. A VRF-specific route lookup shows the connected network under the correct VRF, not only in global routing.
  4. Matching packets use the policy-selected next hop while nonmatching traffic keeps normal forwarding.

Explanation

Correct Answer

C:

A meaningful acceptance check at the Redwood medical campus should verify the actual forwarding or control-plane outcome. A VRF-specific route lookup shows the connected network under the correct VRF, not only in global routing.

Incorrect Answers

A:

The result addresses routing-source administrative distance, not the observed fault at the Redwood medical campus. The decisive outcome is different: A VRF-specific route lookup shows the connected network under the correct VRF, not only in global routing.

B:

This validates an unrelated control at the Redwood medical campus: The OSPF adjacency reaches Full with no authentication failures. It would not demonstrate correction of vrf-lite interface assignment.

D:

The result addresses policy-based routing ingress application, not the observed fault at the Redwood medical campus. The decisive outcome is different: A VRF-specific route lookup shows the connected network under the correct VRF, not only in global routing.

Question 425

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

  1. Policy-matched traffic falls back or changes next hop when the specified gateway becomes unavailable.
  2. The BFD session transitions down promptly on a simulated forwarding failure and the routing neighbor reacts.
  3. Matching packets use the policy-selected next hop while nonmatching traffic keeps normal forwarding.
  4. Only the authorized shared-service prefixes appear and work across the VRF boundary.

Explanation

Correct Answer

D:

A meaningful acceptance check at the Clearwater library district should verify the actual forwarding or control-plane outcome. Only the authorized shared-service prefixes appear and work across the VRF boundary.

Incorrect Answers

A:

That test could pass while the specific fault remains. Policy-matched traffic falls back or changes next hop when the specified gateway becomes unavailable. It would not establish the required outcome for vrf route leaking at the Clearwater library district.

B:

The result addresses bfd independent fast failure detection, not the observed fault at the Clearwater library district. The decisive outcome is different: Only the authorized shared-service prefixes appear and work across the VRF boundary.

C:

This validates an unrelated control at the Clearwater library district: Matching packets use the policy-selected next hop while nonmatching traffic keeps normal forwarding. It would not demonstrate correction of vrf route leaking.

Question 426

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

  1. The virtual link reaches Full and the isolated area's backbone reachability is restored.
  2. Only the authorized shared-service prefixes appear and work across the VRF boundary.
  3. Neighbors learn only the intended connected prefixes with a valid composite metric.
  4. The transit EIGRP neighbor forms while user-facing access interfaces remain passive.

Explanation

Correct Answer

B:

A meaningful acceptance check at the Bayview university campus should verify the actual forwarding or control-plane outcome. Only the authorized shared-service prefixes appear and work across the VRF boundary.

Incorrect Answers

A:

This validates an unrelated control at the Bayview university campus: The virtual link reaches Full and the isolated area's backbone reachability is restored. It would not demonstrate correction of vrf route leaking.

C:

The result addresses seed metric on eigrp redistribution, not the observed fault at the Bayview university campus. The decisive outcome is different: Only the authorized shared-service prefixes appear and work across the VRF boundary.

D:

This validates an unrelated control at the Bayview university campus: The transit EIGRP neighbor forms while user-facing access interfaces remain passive. It would not demonstrate correction of vrf route leaking.

Question 427

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

  1. The transit EIGRP neighbor forms while user-facing access interfaces remain passive.
  2. All relevant internal routers select the intended egress, not just the locally tuned router.
  3. The intended prefix appears as the expected external route while unrelated partner prefixes stay absent.
  4. The BFD session transitions down promptly on a simulated forwarding failure and the routing neighbor reacts.

Explanation

Correct Answer

D:

The stated result demonstrates that the specific condition at the Foothill municipal site has been corrected. The BFD session transitions down promptly on a simulated forwarding failure and the routing neighbor reacts.

Incorrect Answers

A:

The result addresses eigrp passive-interface adjacency, not the observed fault at the Foothill municipal site. The decisive outcome is different: The BFD session transitions down promptly on a simulated forwarding failure and the routing neighbor reacts.

B:

This validates an unrelated control at the Foothill municipal site: All relevant internal routers select the intended egress, not just the locally tuned router. It would not demonstrate correction of bfd independent fast failure detection.

C:

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 bfd independent fast failure detection at the Foothill municipal site.

Question 428

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

  1. The topology table identifies only loop-free feasible successors meeting the inequality.
  2. The BFD session transitions down promptly on a simulated forwarding failure and the routing neighbor reacts.
  3. Each prefix covered by the aggregate has a valid forwarding path, or the aggregate is appropriately withdrawn.
  4. OSPF neighbors reach Full and the intended stub-area LSAs are present.

Explanation

Correct Answer

B:

The stated result demonstrates that the specific condition at the Highland government office has been corrected. The BFD session transitions down promptly on a simulated forwarding failure and the routing neighbor reacts.

Incorrect Answers

A:

That test could pass while the specific fault remains. The topology table identifies only loop-free feasible successors meeting the inequality. It would not establish the required outcome for bfd independent fast failure detection at the Highland government office.

C:

This validates an unrelated control at the Highland government office: Each prefix covered by the aggregate has a valid forwarding path, or the aggregate is appropriately withdrawn. It would not demonstrate correction of bfd independent fast failure detection.

D:

That test could pass while the specific fault remains. OSPF neighbors reach Full and the intended stub-area LSAs are present. It would not establish the required outcome for bfd independent fast failure detection at the Highland government office.

Question 429

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

  1. Queries no longer unnecessarily propagate into the leaf while approved routes remain reachable.
  2. The correct EIGRP neighbor appears and the expected routes are learned.
  3. The transit EIGRP neighbor forms while user-facing access interfaces remain passive.
  4. The EIGRP neighbor forms without authentication errors and intended prefixes arrive.

Explanation

Correct Answer

B:

A meaningful acceptance check at the Brookstone distribution branch should verify the actual forwarding or control-plane outcome. The correct EIGRP neighbor appears and the expected routes are learned.

Incorrect Answers

A:

This validates an unrelated control at the Brookstone distribution branch: Queries no longer unnecessarily propagate into the leaf while approved routes remain reachable. It would not demonstrate correction of eigrp as mismatch.

C:

The result addresses eigrp passive-interface adjacency, not the observed fault at the Brookstone distribution branch. The decisive outcome is different: The correct EIGRP neighbor appears and the expected routes are learned.

D:

This validates an unrelated control at the Brookstone distribution branch: The EIGRP neighbor forms without authentication errors and intended prefixes arrive. It would not demonstrate correction of eigrp as mismatch.

Question 430

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

  1. The selected successor and displayed metric match the planned delay policy.
  2. The routing table installs the permitted unequal-cost feasible paths with expected ratios.
  3. The correct EIGRP neighbor appears and the expected routes are learned.
  4. The transit EIGRP neighbor forms while user-facing access interfaces remain passive.

Explanation

Correct Answer

C:

A meaningful acceptance check at the Silverstream data center should verify the actual forwarding or control-plane outcome. The correct EIGRP neighbor appears and the expected routes are learned.

Incorrect Answers

A:

The result addresses eigrp delay in composite metric, not the observed fault at the Silverstream data center. The decisive outcome is different: The correct EIGRP neighbor appears and the expected routes are learned.

B:

This validates an unrelated control at the Silverstream data center: The routing table installs the permitted unequal-cost feasible paths with expected ratios. It would not demonstrate correction of eigrp as mismatch.

D:

The result addresses eigrp passive-interface adjacency, not the observed fault at the Silverstream data center. The decisive outcome is different: The correct EIGRP neighbor appears and the expected routes are learned.