McAfee Secure

Cisco 300-420 Bundle

Exam Code: 300-420

Exam Name Designing Cisco Enterprise Networks (ENSLD)

Certification Provider: Cisco

Corresponding Certification: CCNP Enterprise

Cisco 300-420 Bundle $25.00
300-420 Sample 1 300-420 Sample 2 300-420 Sample 3 300-420 Sample 4 300-420 Sample 5 300-420 Sample 6 300-420 Sample 7 300-420 Sample 8 300-420 Sample 9 300-420 Sample 10

100% Cisco 300-420 Guaranteed Success With Testking Training Materials

Get Real 300-420 Exam Questions & Expert Verified Answers as Experienced on the Real Exam!

  • Questions & Answers

    300-420 Questions & Answers

    416 Questions & Answers

    The ultimate exam preparation tool, Questions & Answers mirrors the actual 300-420 exam while allowing you to hone and measure every aspect of your test-taking ability.

  • 300-420 Video Course

    300-420 Training Course

    75 Video Lectures

    300-420 Video Course is developed by Cisco Professionals to help you pass the 300-420 exam.

    Description

    This course will improve your knowledge and skills required to pass Designing Cisco Enterprise Networks (ENSLD) exam.

Designing Cisco Enterprise Networks (ENSLD) (300-420) 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

    416 Questions

    $124.99
  • 300-420 Video Course

    Training Course

    75 Video Lectures

    $39.99

Cisco 300-420 Practice Test 11

Question 100

A post-incident design review discusses the following: Two EIGRP links have unequal metrics and the business wants controlled use of both only where loop-free feasibility permits it. Which preventive design control MOST DIRECTLY addresses this specific risk?

  1. Make EIGRP stub status part of remote-site configuration templates.
  2. Check summary coverage against the live IPAM and planned branch growth.
  3. Enforce a single approved EIGRP metric profile via configuration validation.
  4. Re-evaluate feasible paths whenever interface bandwidth or delay policy changes.

Explanation

Correct Answer

D:

Re-evaluate feasible paths whenever interface bandwidth or delay policy changes. This control targets the underlying design risk. EIGRP variance permits qualifying feasible routes of unequal metric to participate in load sharing; it does not waive loop-free feasibility checks. The follow-up acceptance check remains: Both intended qualifying paths are installed and observed utilization remains inside the design constraints.

Incorrect Answers

A:

EIGRP stub signaling discourages neighbors from querying the spoke as a transit path for remote routes. The repeat risk here is different: EIGRP variance permits qualifying feasible routes of unequal metric to participate in load sharing; it does not waive loop-free feasibility checks. A directly relevant preventive control is: Re-evaluate feasible paths whenever interface bandwidth or delay policy changes.

B:

EIGRP summarization can hide detailed routes; an overbroad aggregate may attract traffic to nonexistent destinations. The repeat risk here is different: EIGRP variance permits qualifying feasible routes of unequal metric to participate in load sharing; it does not waive loop-free feasibility checks. A directly relevant preventive control is: Re-evaluate feasible paths whenever interface bandwidth or delay policy changes.

C:

A mismatch in EIGRP K-values prevents neighbor compatibility for route exchange. The repeat risk here is different: EIGRP variance permits qualifying feasible routes of unequal metric to participate in load sharing; it does not waive loop-free feasibility checks. A directly relevant preventive control is: Re-evaluate feasible paths whenever interface bandwidth or delay policy changes.

Question 101

During a network design workshop, the team finds this issue: During a predeployment review for a multisite healthcare network, the team discovers this design gap: two EIGRP links have unequal metrics and the business wants controlled use of both only where loop-free feasibility permits it. An approval gate requires both a measurable acceptance check and a durable prevention control. Which action MOST DIRECTLY meets the stated design requirement?

  1. Make EIGRP metric K-values consistent across peers that must form an adjacency.
  2. Assess feasible paths and configure supported EIGRP unequal-cost load balancing with variance when appropriate.
  3. Design metrics and path diversity with the EIGRP feasibility condition in mind rather than assuming all backups are feasible successors.
  4. Verify BGP multipath eligibility and configure supported maximum-path behavior with consistent policy.

Explanation

Correct Answer

B:

Assess feasible paths and configure supported EIGRP unequal-cost load balancing with variance when appropriate. This action addresses the stated design problem. EIGRP variance permits qualifying feasible routes of unequal metric to participate in load sharing; it does not waive loop-free feasibility checks. A practical confirmation is: Both intended qualifying paths are installed and observed utilization remains inside the design constraints. The multisite healthcare network acceptance record also captures this result.

Incorrect Answers

A:

A mismatch in EIGRP K-values prevents neighbor compatibility for route exchange. The actual fault is governed by a different mechanism: EIGRP variance permits qualifying feasible routes of unequal metric to participate in load sharing; it does not waive loop-free feasibility checks. The needed response is: Assess feasible paths and configure supported EIGRP unequal-cost load balancing with variance when appropriate.

C:

A feasible successor must meet DUAL’s feasibility condition to provide a loop-free immediate backup. The actual fault is governed by a different mechanism: EIGRP variance permits qualifying feasible routes of unequal metric to participate in load sharing; it does not waive loop-free feasibility checks. The needed response is: Assess feasible paths and configure supported EIGRP unequal-cost load balancing with variance when appropriate.

D:

BGP multipath requires compatible selected paths under the platform’s path-equivalence rules; mere coexistence of peers is not enough. The actual fault is governed by a different mechanism: EIGRP variance permits qualifying feasible routes of unequal metric to participate in load sharing; it does not waive loop-free feasibility checks. The needed response is: Assess feasible paths and configure supported EIGRP unequal-cost load balancing with variance when appropriate.

Question 102

In a technical design review: During a predeployment review for a multisite healthcare network, the team discovers this design gap: two EIGRP links have unequal metrics and the business wants controlled use of both only where loop-free feasibility permits it. An approval gate requires both a measurable acceptance check and a durable prevention control. Which technical principle BEST explains the design decision?

  1. A feasible successor must meet DUAL’s feasibility condition to provide a loop-free immediate backup.
  2. EIGRP summarization can hide detailed routes; an overbroad aggregate may attract traffic to nonexistent destinations.
  3. EIGRP variance permits qualifying feasible routes of unequal metric to participate in load sharing; it does not waive loop-free feasibility checks.
  4. IS-IS shortest-path selection is based on configured link-state costs, which may differ by direction.

Explanation

Correct Answer

C:

EIGRP variance permits qualifying feasible routes of unequal metric to participate in load sharing; it does not waive loop-free feasibility checks. The correct engineering response is: Assess feasible paths and configure supported EIGRP unequal-cost load balancing with variance when appropriate. The observable check is: Both intended qualifying paths are installed and observed utilization remains inside the design constraints. The multisite healthcare network acceptance record also captures this result.

Incorrect Answers

A:

EIGRP variance permits qualifying feasible routes of unequal metric to participate in load sharing; it does not waive loop-free feasibility checks. The offered choice instead concerns a different principle: a feasible successor must meet DUAL’s feasibility condition to provide a loop-free immediate backup. Those technical conditions are not interchangeable.

B:

EIGRP variance permits qualifying feasible routes of unequal metric to participate in load sharing; it does not waive loop-free feasibility checks. The offered choice instead concerns a different principle: EIGRP summarization can hide detailed routes; an overbroad aggregate may attract traffic to nonexistent destinations. Those technical conditions are not interchangeable.

D:

EIGRP variance permits qualifying feasible routes of unequal metric to participate in load sharing; it does not waive loop-free feasibility checks. The offered choice instead concerns a different principle: IS-IS shortest-path selection is based on configured link-state costs, which may differ by direction. Those technical conditions are not interchangeable.

Question 103

An engineering reviewer needs objective proof for the following: During a predeployment review for a multisite healthcare network, the team discovers this design gap: two EIGRP links have unequal metrics and the business wants controlled use of both only where loop-free feasibility permits it. An approval gate requires both a measurable acceptance check and a durable prevention control. Which acceptance observation BEST establishes the intended result?

  1. Traffic to each intended component prefix succeeds and unused portions of the summary are not inadvertently advertised.
  2. Peer adjacencies establish and routes enter the topology table after the K-values match.
  3. Hub route queries do not unnecessarily propagate through the spoke and local reachability remains intact.
  4. Both intended qualifying paths are installed and observed utilization remains inside the design constraints. The multisite healthcare network acceptance record also captures this result.

Explanation

Correct Answer

D:

Both intended qualifying paths are installed and observed utilization remains inside the design constraints. The multisite healthcare network acceptance record also captures this result. EIGRP variance permits qualifying feasible routes of unequal metric to participate in load sharing; it does not waive loop-free feasibility checks.

Incorrect Answers

A:

EIGRP summarization can hide detailed routes; an overbroad aggregate may attract traffic to nonexistent destinations. In the case being tested, EIGRP variance permits qualifying feasible routes of unequal metric to participate in load sharing; it does not waive loop-free feasibility checks. The necessary acceptance evidence is: Both intended qualifying paths are installed and observed utilization remains inside the design constraints. The multisite healthcare network acceptance record also captures this result.

B:

A mismatch in EIGRP K-values prevents neighbor compatibility for route exchange. In the case being tested, EIGRP variance permits qualifying feasible routes of unequal metric to participate in load sharing; it does not waive loop-free feasibility checks. The necessary acceptance evidence is: Both intended qualifying paths are installed and observed utilization remains inside the design constraints. The multisite healthcare network acceptance record also captures this result.

C:

EIGRP stub signaling discourages neighbors from querying the spoke as a transit path for remote routes. In the case being tested, EIGRP variance permits qualifying feasible routes of unequal metric to participate in load sharing; it does not waive loop-free feasibility checks. The necessary acceptance evidence is: Both intended qualifying paths are installed and observed utilization remains inside the design constraints. The multisite healthcare network acceptance record also captures this result.

Question 104

The change advisory board sees a repeat risk in this case: During a predeployment review for a multisite healthcare network, the team discovers this design gap: two EIGRP links have unequal metrics and the business wants controlled use of both only where loop-free feasibility permits it. An approval gate requires both a measurable acceptance check and a durable prevention control. Which preventive design control MOST DIRECTLY addresses this specific risk?

  1. Re-evaluate feasible paths whenever interface bandwidth or delay policy changes. Apply the same control to the multisite healthcare network rollout checklist.
  2. Enforce a single approved EIGRP metric profile via configuration validation.
  3. Validate EIGRP successor and backup behavior during link-failure testing.
  4. Make EIGRP stub status part of remote-site configuration templates.

Explanation

Correct Answer

A:

Re-evaluate feasible paths whenever interface bandwidth or delay policy changes. Apply the same control to the multisite healthcare network rollout checklist. This control targets the underlying design risk. EIGRP variance permits qualifying feasible routes of unequal metric to participate in load sharing; it does not waive loop-free feasibility checks. The follow-up acceptance check remains: Both intended qualifying paths are installed and observed utilization remains inside the design constraints. The multisite healthcare network acceptance record also captures this result.

Incorrect Answers

B:

A mismatch in EIGRP K-values prevents neighbor compatibility for route exchange. The repeat risk here is different: EIGRP variance permits qualifying feasible routes of unequal metric to participate in load sharing; it does not waive loop-free feasibility checks. A directly relevant preventive control is: Re-evaluate feasible paths whenever interface bandwidth or delay policy changes. Apply the same control to the multisite healthcare network rollout checklist.

C:

A feasible successor must meet DUAL’s feasibility condition to provide a loop-free immediate backup. The repeat risk here is different: EIGRP variance permits qualifying feasible routes of unequal metric to participate in load sharing; it does not waive loop-free feasibility checks. A directly relevant preventive control is: Re-evaluate feasible paths whenever interface bandwidth or delay policy changes. Apply the same control to the multisite healthcare network rollout checklist.

D:

EIGRP stub signaling discourages neighbors from querying the spoke as a transit path for remote routes. The repeat risk here is different: EIGRP variance permits qualifying feasible routes of unequal metric to participate in load sharing; it does not waive loop-free feasibility checks. A directly relevant preventive control is: Re-evaluate feasible paths whenever interface bandwidth or delay policy changes. Apply the same control to the multisite healthcare network rollout checklist.

Question 105

A design team must resolve this enterprise network problem: A branch introduces a manual EIGRP summary that also covers an unconnected address range. Which action MOST DIRECTLY meets the stated design requirement?

  1. Configure remote EIGRP spokes as stubs with appropriate advertised route types.
  2. Design metrics and path diversity with the EIGRP feasibility condition in mind rather than assuming all backups are feasible successors.
  3. Narrow the summary or correct allocation so the aggregate represents reachable subordinate networks.
  4. Design an IPv6-over-IPv4 tunnel between capable edge devices and account for MTU overhead.

Explanation

Correct Answer

C:

Narrow the summary or correct allocation so the aggregate represents reachable subordinate networks. This action addresses the stated design problem. EIGRP summarization can hide detailed routes; an overbroad aggregate may attract traffic to nonexistent destinations. A practical confirmation is: Traffic to each intended component prefix succeeds and unused portions of the summary are not inadvertently advertised.

Incorrect Answers

A:

EIGRP stub signaling discourages neighbors from querying the spoke as a transit path for remote routes. The actual fault is governed by a different mechanism: EIGRP summarization can hide detailed routes; an overbroad aggregate may attract traffic to nonexistent destinations. The needed response is: Narrow the summary or correct allocation so the aggregate represents reachable subordinate networks.

B:

A feasible successor must meet DUAL’s feasibility condition to provide a loop-free immediate backup. The actual fault is governed by a different mechanism: EIGRP summarization can hide detailed routes; an overbroad aggregate may attract traffic to nonexistent destinations. The needed response is: Narrow the summary or correct allocation so the aggregate represents reachable subordinate networks.

D:

An overlay tunnel encapsulates one protocol through the underlay without upgrading intermediate IPv4-only routers. The actual fault is governed by a different mechanism: EIGRP summarization can hide detailed routes; an overbroad aggregate may attract traffic to nonexistent destinations. The needed response is: Narrow the summary or correct allocation so the aggregate represents reachable subordinate networks.

Question 106

The design record describes this issue: A branch introduces a manual EIGRP summary that also covers an unconnected address range. Which technical principle BEST explains the design decision?

  1. EIGRP stub signaling discourages neighbors from querying the spoke as a transit path for remote routes.
  2. A feasible successor must meet DUAL’s feasibility condition to provide a loop-free immediate backup.
  3. EIGRP variance permits qualifying feasible routes of unequal metric to participate in load sharing; it does not waive loop-free feasibility checks.
  4. EIGRP summarization can hide detailed routes; an overbroad aggregate may attract traffic to nonexistent destinations.

Explanation

Correct Answer

D:

EIGRP summarization can hide detailed routes; an overbroad aggregate may attract traffic to nonexistent destinations. The correct engineering response is: Narrow the summary or correct allocation so the aggregate represents reachable subordinate networks. The observable check is: Traffic to each intended component prefix succeeds and unused portions of the summary are not inadvertently advertised.

Incorrect Answers

A:

EIGRP summarization can hide detailed routes; an overbroad aggregate may attract traffic to nonexistent destinations. The offered choice instead concerns a different principle: EIGRP stub signaling discourages neighbors from querying the spoke as a transit path for remote routes. Those technical conditions are not interchangeable.

B:

EIGRP summarization can hide detailed routes; an overbroad aggregate may attract traffic to nonexistent destinations. The offered choice instead concerns a different principle: a feasible successor must meet DUAL’s feasibility condition to provide a loop-free immediate backup. Those technical conditions are not interchangeable.

C:

EIGRP summarization can hide detailed routes; an overbroad aggregate may attract traffic to nonexistent destinations. The offered choice instead concerns a different principle: EIGRP variance permits qualifying feasible routes of unequal metric to participate in load sharing; it does not waive loop-free feasibility checks. Those technical conditions are not interchangeable.

Question 107

After designing a change for the following scenario: A branch introduces a manual EIGRP summary that also covers an unconnected address range. Which acceptance observation BEST establishes the intended result?

  1. Traffic to each intended component prefix succeeds and unused portions of the summary are not inadvertently advertised.
  2. Peer adjacencies establish and routes enter the topology table after the K-values match.
  3. Both intended qualifying paths are installed and observed utilization remains inside the design constraints.
  4. External route collectors and measured ingress traffic show whether the intended path preference is achieved.

Explanation

Correct Answer

A:

Traffic to each intended component prefix succeeds and unused portions of the summary are not inadvertently advertised. EIGRP summarization can hide detailed routes; an overbroad aggregate may attract traffic to nonexistent destinations.

Incorrect Answers

B:

A mismatch in EIGRP K-values prevents neighbor compatibility for route exchange. In the case being tested, EIGRP summarization can hide detailed routes; an overbroad aggregate may attract traffic to nonexistent destinations. The necessary acceptance evidence is: Traffic to each intended component prefix succeeds and unused portions of the summary are not inadvertently advertised.

C:

EIGRP variance permits qualifying feasible routes of unequal metric to participate in load sharing; it does not waive loop-free feasibility checks. In the case being tested, EIGRP summarization can hide detailed routes; an overbroad aggregate may attract traffic to nonexistent destinations. The necessary acceptance evidence is: Traffic to each intended component prefix succeeds and unused portions of the summary are not inadvertently advertised.

D:

AS-path length can influence outside-AS best-path selection but remote networks keep final policy authority. In the case being tested, EIGRP summarization can hide detailed routes; an overbroad aggregate may attract traffic to nonexistent destinations. The necessary acceptance evidence is: Traffic to each intended component prefix succeeds and unused portions of the summary are not inadvertently advertised.

Question 108

A preventive architecture review covers this situation: A branch introduces a manual EIGRP summary that also covers an unconnected address range. Which preventive design control MOST DIRECTLY addresses this specific risk?

  1. Re-evaluate feasible paths whenever interface bandwidth or delay policy changes.
  2. Check summary coverage against the live IPAM and planned branch growth.
  3. Validate EIGRP successor and backup behavior during link-failure testing.
  4. Inventory application compatibility and monitor translation capacity and DNS64 behavior.

Explanation

Correct Answer

B:

Check summary coverage against the live IPAM and planned branch growth. This control targets the underlying design risk. EIGRP summarization can hide detailed routes; an overbroad aggregate may attract traffic to nonexistent destinations. The follow-up acceptance check remains: Traffic to each intended component prefix succeeds and unused portions of the summary are not inadvertently advertised.

Incorrect Answers

A:

EIGRP variance permits qualifying feasible routes of unequal metric to participate in load sharing; it does not waive loop-free feasibility checks. The repeat risk here is different: EIGRP summarization can hide detailed routes; an overbroad aggregate may attract traffic to nonexistent destinations. A directly relevant preventive control is: Check summary coverage against the live IPAM and planned branch growth.

C:

A feasible successor must meet DUAL’s feasibility condition to provide a loop-free immediate backup. The repeat risk here is different: EIGRP summarization can hide detailed routes; an overbroad aggregate may attract traffic to nonexistent destinations. A directly relevant preventive control is: Check summary coverage against the live IPAM and planned branch growth.

D:

DNS64 can synthesize AAAA records and NAT64 translates eligible IPv6 flows to IPv4; it is not ordinary dual stack. The repeat risk here is different: EIGRP summarization can hide detailed routes; an overbroad aggregate may attract traffic to nonexistent destinations. A directly relevant preventive control is: Check summary coverage against the live IPAM and planned branch growth.

Question 109

A new campus or WAN review presents this constraint: During a predeployment review for a distributed retail network, the team discovers this design gap: a branch introduces a manual EIGRP summary that also covers an unconnected address range. An approval gate requires both a measurable acceptance check and a durable prevention control. Which action MOST DIRECTLY meets the stated design requirement?

  1. Assess feasible paths and configure supported EIGRP unequal-cost load balancing with variance when appropriate.
  2. Design metrics and path diversity with the EIGRP feasibility condition in mind rather than assuming all backups are feasible successors.
  3. Allocate at least a /25 for the present host count and separately reserve adjacent space for growth.
  4. Narrow the summary or correct allocation so the aggregate represents reachable subordinate networks.

Explanation

Correct Answer

D:

Narrow the summary or correct allocation so the aggregate represents reachable subordinate networks. This action addresses the stated design problem. EIGRP summarization can hide detailed routes; an overbroad aggregate may attract traffic to nonexistent destinations. A practical confirmation is: Traffic to each intended component prefix succeeds and unused portions of the summary are not inadvertently advertised. The distributed retail network acceptance record also captures this result.

Incorrect Answers

A:

EIGRP variance permits qualifying feasible routes of unequal metric to participate in load sharing; it does not waive loop-free feasibility checks. The actual fault is governed by a different mechanism: EIGRP summarization can hide detailed routes; an overbroad aggregate may attract traffic to nonexistent destinations. The needed response is: Narrow the summary or correct allocation so the aggregate represents reachable subordinate networks.

B:

A feasible successor must meet DUAL’s feasibility condition to provide a loop-free immediate backup. The actual fault is governed by a different mechanism: EIGRP summarization can hide detailed routes; an overbroad aggregate may attract traffic to nonexistent destinations. The needed response is: Narrow the summary or correct allocation so the aggregate represents reachable subordinate networks.

C:

A /26 offers 62 usable conventional host addresses; a /25 offers 126, so /26 cannot accommodate 108 endpoints. The actual fault is governed by a different mechanism: EIGRP summarization can hide detailed routes; an overbroad aggregate may attract traffic to nonexistent destinations. The needed response is: Narrow the summary or correct allocation so the aggregate represents reachable subordinate networks.

Question 110

For this Cisco ENSLD design case: During a predeployment review for a distributed retail network, the team discovers this design gap: a branch introduces a manual EIGRP summary that also covers an unconnected address range. An approval gate requires both a measurable acceptance check and a durable prevention control. Which technical principle BEST explains the design decision?

  1. EIGRP summarization can hide detailed routes; an overbroad aggregate may attract traffic to nonexistent destinations.
  2. EIGRP stub signaling discourages neighbors from querying the spoke as a transit path for remote routes.
  3. A feasible successor must meet DUAL’s feasibility condition to provide a loop-free immediate backup.
  4. A mismatch in EIGRP K-values prevents neighbor compatibility for route exchange.

Explanation

Correct Answer

A:

EIGRP summarization can hide detailed routes; an overbroad aggregate may attract traffic to nonexistent destinations. The correct engineering response is: Narrow the summary or correct allocation so the aggregate represents reachable subordinate networks. The observable check is: Traffic to each intended component prefix succeeds and unused portions of the summary are not inadvertently advertised. The distributed retail network acceptance record also captures this result.

Incorrect Answers

B:

EIGRP summarization can hide detailed routes; an overbroad aggregate may attract traffic to nonexistent destinations. The offered choice instead concerns a different principle: EIGRP stub signaling discourages neighbors from querying the spoke as a transit path for remote routes. Those technical conditions are not interchangeable.

C:

EIGRP summarization can hide detailed routes; an overbroad aggregate may attract traffic to nonexistent destinations. The offered choice instead concerns a different principle: a feasible successor must meet DUAL’s feasibility condition to provide a loop-free immediate backup. Those technical conditions are not interchangeable.

D:

EIGRP summarization can hide detailed routes; an overbroad aggregate may attract traffic to nonexistent destinations. The offered choice instead concerns a different principle: a mismatch in EIGRP K-values prevents neighbor compatibility for route exchange. Those technical conditions are not interchangeable.