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 19

Question 180

A post-incident design review discusses the following: A full-mesh iBGP design grows from 8 to 70 routers, producing an impractical number of peering sessions. Which preventive design control MOST DIRECTLY addresses this specific risk?

  1. Validate multipath equivalence and hashing behavior during capacity tests.
  2. Track advertised AS paths and validate ingress behavior with both providers after changes.
  3. Document and audit local preference policy consistently at ingress border peers.
  4. Test route-reflector redundancy and loop-prevention identifiers before scale-out.

Explanation

Correct Answer

D:

Test route-reflector redundancy and loop-prevention identifiers before scale-out. This control targets the underlying design risk. Route reflectors reduce the need for every iBGP speaker to peer with every other speaker, while preserving iBGP route propagation rules. The follow-up acceptance check remains: Clients receive intended reachable prefixes through both reflectors and reflector failure does not isolate the control plane.

Incorrect Answers

A:

BGP multipath requires compatible selected paths under the platform’s path-equivalence rules; mere coexistence of peers is not enough. The repeat risk here is different: Route reflectors reduce the need for every iBGP speaker to peer with every other speaker, while preserving iBGP route propagation rules. A directly relevant preventive control is: Test route-reflector redundancy and loop-prevention identifiers before scale-out.

B:

AS-path length can influence outside-AS best-path selection but remote networks keep final policy authority. The repeat risk here is different: Route reflectors reduce the need for every iBGP speaker to peer with every other speaker, while preserving iBGP route propagation rules. A directly relevant preventive control is: Test route-reflector redundancy and loop-prevention identifiers before scale-out.

C:

BGP local preference is used within an AS to prefer an outbound path, with higher values preferred. The repeat risk here is different: Route reflectors reduce the need for every iBGP speaker to peer with every other speaker, while preserving iBGP route propagation rules. A directly relevant preventive control is: Test route-reflector redundancy and loop-prevention identifiers before scale-out.

Question 181

During a network design workshop, the team finds this issue: During a predeployment review for a manufacturing regional hub, the team discovers this design gap: a full-mesh iBGP design grows from 8 to 70 routers, producing an impractical number of peering sessions. An approval gate requires both a measurable acceptance check and a durable prevention control. Which action MOST DIRECTLY meets the stated design requirement?

  1. Set higher BGP local preference for the desired exit within the local AS.
  2. Design a redundant BGP route-reflector topology and planned cluster/client relationships.
  3. Verify BGP multipath eligibility and configure supported maximum-path behavior with consistent policy.
  4. Apply explicit BGP inbound prefix filtering and route limits to the partner adjacency.

Explanation

Correct Answer

B:

Design a redundant BGP route-reflector topology and planned cluster/client relationships. This action addresses the stated design problem. Route reflectors reduce the need for every iBGP speaker to peer with every other speaker, while preserving iBGP route propagation rules. A practical confirmation is: Clients receive intended reachable prefixes through both reflectors and reflector failure does not isolate the control plane. The manufacturing regional hub acceptance record also captures this result.

Incorrect Answers

A:

BGP local preference is used within an AS to prefer an outbound path, with higher values preferred. The actual fault is governed by a different mechanism: Route reflectors reduce the need for every iBGP speaker to peer with every other speaker, while preserving iBGP route propagation rules. The needed response is: Design a redundant BGP route-reflector topology and planned cluster/client relationships.

C:

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: Route reflectors reduce the need for every iBGP speaker to peer with every other speaker, while preserving iBGP route propagation rules. The needed response is: Design a redundant BGP route-reflector topology and planned cluster/client relationships.

D:

Route policy can prevent undesired BGP NLRI from entering the local routing system. The actual fault is governed by a different mechanism: Route reflectors reduce the need for every iBGP speaker to peer with every other speaker, while preserving iBGP route propagation rules. The needed response is: Design a redundant BGP route-reflector topology and planned cluster/client relationships.

Question 182

In a technical design review: During a predeployment review for a manufacturing regional hub, the team discovers this design gap: a full-mesh iBGP design grows from 8 to 70 routers, producing an impractical number of peering sessions. An approval gate requires both a measurable acceptance check and a durable prevention control. Which technical principle BEST explains the design decision?

  1. BGP multipath requires compatible selected paths under the platform’s path-equivalence rules; mere coexistence of peers is not enough.
  2. BGP paths require a reachable next hop in the forwarding plane; distributing the prefix alone is not sufficient.
  3. Route reflectors reduce the need for every iBGP speaker to peer with every other speaker, while preserving iBGP route propagation rules.
  4. AS-path length can influence outside-AS best-path selection but remote networks keep final policy authority.

Explanation

Correct Answer

C:

Route reflectors reduce the need for every iBGP speaker to peer with every other speaker, while preserving iBGP route propagation rules. The correct engineering response is: Design a redundant BGP route-reflector topology and planned cluster/client relationships. The observable check is: Clients receive intended reachable prefixes through both reflectors and reflector failure does not isolate the control plane. The manufacturing regional hub acceptance record also captures this result.

Incorrect Answers

A:

Route reflectors reduce the need for every iBGP speaker to peer with every other speaker, while preserving iBGP route propagation rules. The offered choice instead concerns a different principle: BGP multipath requires compatible selected paths under the platform’s path-equivalence rules; mere coexistence of peers is not enough. Those technical conditions are not interchangeable.

B:

Route reflectors reduce the need for every iBGP speaker to peer with every other speaker, while preserving iBGP route propagation rules. The offered choice instead concerns a different principle: BGP paths require a reachable next hop in the forwarding plane; distributing the prefix alone is not sufficient. Those technical conditions are not interchangeable.

D:

Route reflectors reduce the need for every iBGP speaker to peer with every other speaker, while preserving iBGP route propagation rules. The offered choice instead concerns a different principle: AS-path length can influence outside-AS best-path selection but remote networks keep final policy authority. Those technical conditions are not interchangeable.

Question 183

An engineering reviewer needs objective proof for the following: During a predeployment review for a manufacturing regional hub, the team discovers this design gap: a full-mesh iBGP design grows from 8 to 70 routers, producing an impractical number of peering sessions. An approval gate requires both a measurable acceptance check and a durable prevention control. Which acceptance observation BEST establishes the intended result?

  1. Only approved partner prefixes are accepted and excess or private prefixes are rejected and logged.
  2. Routers across the AS select the intended exit for qualifying routes and fail over to the other when required.
  3. Clients resolve the advertised BGP next hop and forward through the intended border router.
  4. Clients receive intended reachable prefixes through both reflectors and reflector failure does not isolate the control plane. The manufacturing regional hub acceptance record also captures this result.

Explanation

Correct Answer

D:

Clients receive intended reachable prefixes through both reflectors and reflector failure does not isolate the control plane. The manufacturing regional hub acceptance record also captures this result. Route reflectors reduce the need for every iBGP speaker to peer with every other speaker, while preserving iBGP route propagation rules.

Incorrect Answers

A:

Route policy can prevent undesired BGP NLRI from entering the local routing system. In the case being tested, Route reflectors reduce the need for every iBGP speaker to peer with every other speaker, while preserving iBGP route propagation rules. The necessary acceptance evidence is: Clients receive intended reachable prefixes through both reflectors and reflector failure does not isolate the control plane. The manufacturing regional hub acceptance record also captures this result.

B:

BGP local preference is used within an AS to prefer an outbound path, with higher values preferred. In the case being tested, Route reflectors reduce the need for every iBGP speaker to peer with every other speaker, while preserving iBGP route propagation rules. The necessary acceptance evidence is: Clients receive intended reachable prefixes through both reflectors and reflector failure does not isolate the control plane. The manufacturing regional hub acceptance record also captures this result.

C:

BGP paths require a reachable next hop in the forwarding plane; distributing the prefix alone is not sufficient. In the case being tested, Route reflectors reduce the need for every iBGP speaker to peer with every other speaker, while preserving iBGP route propagation rules. The necessary acceptance evidence is: Clients receive intended reachable prefixes through both reflectors and reflector failure does not isolate the control plane. The manufacturing regional hub acceptance record also captures this result.

Question 184

The change advisory board sees a repeat risk in this case: During a predeployment review for a manufacturing regional hub, the team discovers this design gap: a full-mesh iBGP design grows from 8 to 70 routers, producing an impractical number of peering sessions. 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. Test route-reflector redundancy and loop-prevention identifiers before scale-out. Apply the same control to the manufacturing regional hub rollout checklist.
  2. Validate multipath equivalence and hashing behavior during capacity tests.
  3. Maintain peer-specific prefix inventories and review BGP filters before provider changes.
  4. Include recursive next-hop resolution in the BGP acceptance checklist.

Explanation

Correct Answer

A:

Test route-reflector redundancy and loop-prevention identifiers before scale-out. Apply the same control to the manufacturing regional hub rollout checklist. This control targets the underlying design risk. Route reflectors reduce the need for every iBGP speaker to peer with every other speaker, while preserving iBGP route propagation rules. The follow-up acceptance check remains: Clients receive intended reachable prefixes through both reflectors and reflector failure does not isolate the control plane. The manufacturing regional hub acceptance record also captures this result.

Incorrect Answers

B:

BGP multipath requires compatible selected paths under the platform’s path-equivalence rules; mere coexistence of peers is not enough. The repeat risk here is different: Route reflectors reduce the need for every iBGP speaker to peer with every other speaker, while preserving iBGP route propagation rules. A directly relevant preventive control is: Test route-reflector redundancy and loop-prevention identifiers before scale-out. Apply the same control to the manufacturing regional hub rollout checklist.

C:

Route policy can prevent undesired BGP NLRI from entering the local routing system. The repeat risk here is different: Route reflectors reduce the need for every iBGP speaker to peer with every other speaker, while preserving iBGP route propagation rules. A directly relevant preventive control is: Test route-reflector redundancy and loop-prevention identifiers before scale-out. Apply the same control to the manufacturing regional hub rollout checklist.

D:

BGP paths require a reachable next hop in the forwarding plane; distributing the prefix alone is not sufficient. The repeat risk here is different: Route reflectors reduce the need for every iBGP speaker to peer with every other speaker, while preserving iBGP route propagation rules. A directly relevant preventive control is: Test route-reflector redundancy and loop-prevention identifiers before scale-out. Apply the same control to the manufacturing regional hub rollout checklist.

Question 185

A design team must resolve this enterprise network problem: An eBGP-learned route is reflected through iBGP but the next hop remains unreachable to an internal client. Which action MOST DIRECTLY meets the stated design requirement?

  1. Design a redundant BGP route-reflector topology and planned cluster/client relationships.
  2. Consider controlled AS-path prepending on the less-preferred advertisement while acknowledging external policy can override it.
  3. Ensure next-hop reachability through the IGP or apply next-hop-self at an appropriate border as designed.
  4. Apply explicit BGP inbound prefix filtering and route limits to the partner adjacency.

Explanation

Correct Answer

C:

Ensure next-hop reachability through the IGP or apply next-hop-self at an appropriate border as designed. This action addresses the stated design problem. BGP paths require a reachable next hop in the forwarding plane; distributing the prefix alone is not sufficient. A practical confirmation is: Clients resolve the advertised BGP next hop and forward through the intended border router.

Incorrect Answers

A:

Route reflectors reduce the need for every iBGP speaker to peer with every other speaker, while preserving iBGP route propagation rules. The actual fault is governed by a different mechanism: BGP paths require a reachable next hop in the forwarding plane; distributing the prefix alone is not sufficient. The needed response is: Ensure next-hop reachability through the IGP or apply next-hop-self at an appropriate border as designed.

B:

AS-path length can influence outside-AS best-path selection but remote networks keep final policy authority. The actual fault is governed by a different mechanism: BGP paths require a reachable next hop in the forwarding plane; distributing the prefix alone is not sufficient. The needed response is: Ensure next-hop reachability through the IGP or apply next-hop-self at an appropriate border as designed.

D:

Route policy can prevent undesired BGP NLRI from entering the local routing system. The actual fault is governed by a different mechanism: BGP paths require a reachable next hop in the forwarding plane; distributing the prefix alone is not sufficient. The needed response is: Ensure next-hop reachability through the IGP or apply next-hop-self at an appropriate border as designed.

Question 186

The design record describes this issue: An eBGP-learned route is reflected through iBGP but the next hop remains unreachable to an internal client. Which technical principle BEST explains the design decision?

  1. Route reflectors reduce the need for every iBGP speaker to peer with every other speaker, while preserving iBGP route propagation rules.
  2. Route policy can prevent undesired BGP NLRI from entering the local routing system.
  3. BGP multipath requires compatible selected paths under the platform’s path-equivalence rules; mere coexistence of peers is not enough.
  4. BGP paths require a reachable next hop in the forwarding plane; distributing the prefix alone is not sufficient.

Explanation

Correct Answer

D:

BGP paths require a reachable next hop in the forwarding plane; distributing the prefix alone is not sufficient. The correct engineering response is: Ensure next-hop reachability through the IGP or apply next-hop-self at an appropriate border as designed. The observable check is: Clients resolve the advertised BGP next hop and forward through the intended border router.

Incorrect Answers

A:

BGP paths require a reachable next hop in the forwarding plane; distributing the prefix alone is not sufficient. The offered choice instead concerns a different principle: Route reflectors reduce the need for every iBGP speaker to peer with every other speaker, while preserving iBGP route propagation rules. Those technical conditions are not interchangeable.

B:

BGP paths require a reachable next hop in the forwarding plane; distributing the prefix alone is not sufficient. The offered choice instead concerns a different principle: Route policy can prevent undesired BGP NLRI from entering the local routing system. Those technical conditions are not interchangeable.

C:

BGP paths require a reachable next hop in the forwarding plane; distributing the prefix alone is not sufficient. The offered choice instead concerns a different principle: BGP multipath requires compatible selected paths under the platform’s path-equivalence rules; mere coexistence of peers is not enough. Those technical conditions are not interchangeable.

Question 187

After designing a change for the following scenario: An eBGP-learned route is reflected through iBGP but the next hop remains unreachable to an internal client. Which acceptance observation BEST establishes the intended result?

  1. Clients resolve the advertised BGP next hop and forward through the intended border router.
  2. Only approved partner prefixes are accepted and excess or private prefixes are rejected and logged.
  3. Routers across the AS select the intended exit for qualifying routes and fail over to the other when required.
  4. Clients receive intended reachable prefixes through both reflectors and reflector failure does not isolate the control plane.

Explanation

Correct Answer

A:

Clients resolve the advertised BGP next hop and forward through the intended border router. BGP paths require a reachable next hop in the forwarding plane; distributing the prefix alone is not sufficient.

Incorrect Answers

B:

Route policy can prevent undesired BGP NLRI from entering the local routing system. In the case being tested, BGP paths require a reachable next hop in the forwarding plane; distributing the prefix alone is not sufficient. The necessary acceptance evidence is: Clients resolve the advertised BGP next hop and forward through the intended border router.

C:

BGP local preference is used within an AS to prefer an outbound path, with higher values preferred. In the case being tested, BGP paths require a reachable next hop in the forwarding plane; distributing the prefix alone is not sufficient. The necessary acceptance evidence is: Clients resolve the advertised BGP next hop and forward through the intended border router.

D:

Route reflectors reduce the need for every iBGP speaker to peer with every other speaker, while preserving iBGP route propagation rules. In the case being tested, BGP paths require a reachable next hop in the forwarding plane; distributing the prefix alone is not sufficient. The necessary acceptance evidence is: Clients resolve the advertised BGP next hop and forward through the intended border router.

Question 188

A preventive architecture review covers this situation: An eBGP-learned route is reflected through iBGP but the next hop remains unreachable to an internal client. Which preventive design control MOST DIRECTLY addresses this specific risk?

  1. Track advertised AS paths and validate ingress behavior with both providers after changes.
  2. Include recursive next-hop resolution in the BGP acceptance checklist.
  3. Test route-reflector redundancy and loop-prevention identifiers before scale-out.
  4. Document and audit local preference policy consistently at ingress border peers.

Explanation

Correct Answer

B:

Include recursive next-hop resolution in the BGP acceptance checklist. This control targets the underlying design risk. BGP paths require a reachable next hop in the forwarding plane; distributing the prefix alone is not sufficient. The follow-up acceptance check remains: Clients resolve the advertised BGP next hop and forward through the intended border router.

Incorrect Answers

A:

AS-path length can influence outside-AS best-path selection but remote networks keep final policy authority. The repeat risk here is different: BGP paths require a reachable next hop in the forwarding plane; distributing the prefix alone is not sufficient. A directly relevant preventive control is: Include recursive next-hop resolution in the BGP acceptance checklist.

C:

Route reflectors reduce the need for every iBGP speaker to peer with every other speaker, while preserving iBGP route propagation rules. The repeat risk here is different: BGP paths require a reachable next hop in the forwarding plane; distributing the prefix alone is not sufficient. A directly relevant preventive control is: Include recursive next-hop resolution in the BGP acceptance checklist.

D:

BGP local preference is used within an AS to prefer an outbound path, with higher values preferred. The repeat risk here is different: BGP paths require a reachable next hop in the forwarding plane; distributing the prefix alone is not sufficient. A directly relevant preventive control is: Include recursive next-hop resolution in the BGP acceptance checklist.

Question 189

A new campus or WAN review presents this constraint: During a predeployment review for a financial services campus, the team discovers this design gap: an eBGP-learned route is reflected through iBGP but the next hop remains unreachable to an internal client. An approval gate requires both a measurable acceptance check and a durable prevention control. Which action MOST DIRECTLY meets the stated design requirement?

  1. Consider controlled AS-path prepending on the less-preferred advertisement while acknowledging external policy can override it.
  2. Set higher BGP local preference for the desired exit within the local AS.
  3. Deploy dual stack across participating links and hosts with distinct IPv4 and IPv6 routing and security controls.
  4. Ensure next-hop reachability through the IGP or apply next-hop-self at an appropriate border as designed.

Explanation

Correct Answer

D:

Ensure next-hop reachability through the IGP or apply next-hop-self at an appropriate border as designed. This action addresses the stated design problem. BGP paths require a reachable next hop in the forwarding plane; distributing the prefix alone is not sufficient. A practical confirmation is: Clients resolve the advertised BGP next hop and forward through the intended border router. The financial services campus acceptance record also captures this result.

Incorrect Answers

A:

AS-path length can influence outside-AS best-path selection but remote networks keep final policy authority. The actual fault is governed by a different mechanism: BGP paths require a reachable next hop in the forwarding plane; distributing the prefix alone is not sufficient. The needed response is: Ensure next-hop reachability through the IGP or apply next-hop-self at an appropriate border as designed.

B:

BGP local preference is used within an AS to prefer an outbound path, with higher values preferred. The actual fault is governed by a different mechanism: BGP paths require a reachable next hop in the forwarding plane; distributing the prefix alone is not sufficient. The needed response is: Ensure next-hop reachability through the IGP or apply next-hop-self at an appropriate border as designed.

C:

Dual stack runs both protocol families natively; it does not translate IPv4 packets into IPv6 packets. The actual fault is governed by a different mechanism: BGP paths require a reachable next hop in the forwarding plane; distributing the prefix alone is not sufficient. The needed response is: Ensure next-hop reachability through the IGP or apply next-hop-self at an appropriate border as designed.

Question 190

For this Cisco ENSLD design case: During a predeployment review for a financial services campus, the team discovers this design gap: an eBGP-learned route is reflected through iBGP but the next hop remains unreachable to an internal client. An approval gate requires both a measurable acceptance check and a durable prevention control. Which technical principle BEST explains the design decision?

  1. BGP paths require a reachable next hop in the forwarding plane; distributing the prefix alone is not sufficient.
  2. BGP local preference is used within an AS to prefer an outbound path, with higher values preferred.
  3. Route policy can prevent undesired BGP NLRI from entering the local routing system.
  4. Routing protocol authentication helps prevent unauthenticated devices from injecting link-state information.

Explanation

Correct Answer

A:

BGP paths require a reachable next hop in the forwarding plane; distributing the prefix alone is not sufficient. The correct engineering response is: Ensure next-hop reachability through the IGP or apply next-hop-self at an appropriate border as designed. The observable check is: Clients resolve the advertised BGP next hop and forward through the intended border router. The financial services campus acceptance record also captures this result.

Incorrect Answers

B:

BGP paths require a reachable next hop in the forwarding plane; distributing the prefix alone is not sufficient. The offered choice instead concerns a different principle: BGP local preference is used within an AS to prefer an outbound path, with higher values preferred. Those technical conditions are not interchangeable.

C:

BGP paths require a reachable next hop in the forwarding plane; distributing the prefix alone is not sufficient. The offered choice instead concerns a different principle: Route policy can prevent undesired BGP NLRI from entering the local routing system. Those technical conditions are not interchangeable.

D:

BGP paths require a reachable next hop in the forwarding plane; distributing the prefix alone is not sufficient. The offered choice instead concerns a different principle: Routing protocol authentication helps prevent unauthenticated devices from injecting link-state information. Those technical conditions are not interchangeable.