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 20

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.

Question 191

During acceptance testing for this network design: 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 acceptance observation BEST establishes the intended result?

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

Explanation

Correct Answer

B:

Clients resolve the advertised BGP next hop and forward through the intended border router. The financial services campus acceptance record also captures this result. BGP paths require a reachable next hop in the forwarding plane; distributing the prefix alone is not sufficient.

Incorrect Answers

A:

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. The financial services campus acceptance record also captures this result.

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. The financial services campus acceptance record also captures this result.

D:

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. The financial services campus acceptance record also captures this result.

Question 192

Operations wants to avoid recurrence of this design flaw: 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 preventive design control MOST DIRECTLY addresses this specific risk?

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

Explanation

Correct Answer

C:

Include recursive next-hop resolution in the BGP acceptance checklist. Apply the same control to the financial services campus rollout 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. The financial services campus 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 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. Apply the same control to the financial services campus rollout checklist.

B:

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. Apply the same control to the financial services campus rollout checklist.

D:

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. Apply the same control to the financial services campus rollout checklist.

Question 193

A Cisco enterprise designer reviews the following scenario: A partner sends default and private internal prefixes but the enterprise should learn only approved service aggregates. Which action MOST DIRECTLY meets the stated design requirement?

  1. Apply explicit BGP inbound prefix filtering and route limits to the partner adjacency.
  2. Consider controlled AS-path prepending on the less-preferred advertisement while acknowledging external policy can override it.
  3. Design a redundant BGP route-reflector topology and planned cluster/client relationships.
  4. Verify BGP multipath eligibility and configure supported maximum-path behavior with consistent policy.

Explanation

Correct Answer

A:

Apply explicit BGP inbound prefix filtering and route limits to the partner adjacency. This action addresses the stated design problem. Route policy can prevent undesired BGP NLRI from entering the local routing system. A practical confirmation is: Only approved partner prefixes are accepted and excess or private prefixes are rejected and logged.

Incorrect Answers

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: Route policy can prevent undesired BGP NLRI from entering the local routing system. The needed response is: Apply explicit BGP inbound prefix filtering and route limits to the partner adjacency.

C:

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: Route policy can prevent undesired BGP NLRI from entering the local routing system. The needed response is: Apply explicit BGP inbound prefix filtering and route limits to the partner adjacency.

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: Route policy can prevent undesired BGP NLRI from entering the local routing system. The needed response is: Apply explicit BGP inbound prefix filtering and route limits to the partner adjacency.

Question 194

The network architecture board discusses the following: A partner sends default and private internal prefixes but the enterprise should learn only approved service aggregates. 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. Route policy can prevent undesired BGP NLRI from entering the local routing system.
  3. BGP local preference is used within an AS to prefer an outbound path, with higher values preferred.
  4. BGP paths require a reachable next hop in the forwarding plane; distributing the prefix alone is not sufficient.

Explanation

Correct Answer

B:

Route policy can prevent undesired BGP NLRI from entering the local routing system. The correct engineering response is: Apply explicit BGP inbound prefix filtering and route limits to the partner adjacency. The observable check is: Only approved partner prefixes are accepted and excess or private prefixes are rejected and logged.

Incorrect Answers

A:

Route policy can prevent undesired BGP NLRI from entering the local routing system. 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.

C:

Route policy can prevent undesired BGP NLRI from entering the local routing system. 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.

D:

Route policy can prevent undesired BGP NLRI from entering the local routing system. 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.

Question 195

The infrastructure team must validate this situation: A partner sends default and private internal prefixes but the enterprise should learn only approved service aggregates. Which acceptance observation BEST establishes the intended result?

  1. External route collectors and measured ingress traffic show whether the intended path preference is achieved.
  2. Clients receive intended reachable prefixes through both reflectors and reflector failure does not isolate the control plane.
  3. Only approved partner prefixes are accepted and excess or private prefixes are rejected and logged.
  4. Clients resolve the advertised BGP next hop and forward through the intended border router.

Explanation

Correct Answer

C:

Only approved partner prefixes are accepted and excess or private prefixes are rejected and logged. Route policy can prevent undesired BGP NLRI from entering the local routing system.

Incorrect Answers

A:

AS-path length can influence outside-AS best-path selection but remote networks keep final policy authority. In the case being tested, Route policy can prevent undesired BGP NLRI from entering the local routing system. The necessary acceptance evidence is: Only approved partner prefixes are accepted and excess or private prefixes are rejected and logged.

B:

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, Route policy can prevent undesired BGP NLRI from entering the local routing system. The necessary acceptance evidence is: Only approved partner prefixes are accepted and excess or private prefixes are rejected and logged.

D:

BGP paths require a reachable next hop in the forwarding plane; distributing the prefix alone is not sufficient. In the case being tested, Route policy can prevent undesired BGP NLRI from entering the local routing system. The necessary acceptance evidence is: Only approved partner prefixes are accepted and excess or private prefixes are rejected and logged.

Question 196

A post-incident design review discusses the following: A partner sends default and private internal prefixes but the enterprise should learn only approved service aggregates. Which preventive design control MOST DIRECTLY addresses this specific risk?

  1. Document and audit local preference policy consistently at ingress border peers.
  2. Validate multipath equivalence and hashing behavior during capacity tests.
  3. Track advertised AS paths and validate ingress behavior with both providers after changes.
  4. Maintain peer-specific prefix inventories and review BGP filters before provider changes.

Explanation

Correct Answer

D:

Maintain peer-specific prefix inventories and review BGP filters before provider changes. This control targets the underlying design risk. Route policy can prevent undesired BGP NLRI from entering the local routing system. The follow-up acceptance check remains: Only approved partner prefixes are accepted and excess or private prefixes are rejected and logged.

Incorrect Answers

A:

BGP local preference is used within an AS to prefer an outbound path, with higher values preferred. The repeat risk here is different: Route policy can prevent undesired BGP NLRI from entering the local routing system. A directly relevant preventive control is: Maintain peer-specific prefix inventories and review BGP filters before provider changes.

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 policy can prevent undesired BGP NLRI from entering the local routing system. A directly relevant preventive control is: Maintain peer-specific prefix inventories and review BGP filters before provider changes.

C:

AS-path length can influence outside-AS best-path selection but remote networks keep final policy authority. The repeat risk here is different: Route policy can prevent undesired BGP NLRI from entering the local routing system. A directly relevant preventive control is: Maintain peer-specific prefix inventories and review BGP filters before provider changes.

Question 197

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: a partner sends default and private internal prefixes but the enterprise should learn only approved service aggregates. 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. Apply explicit BGP inbound prefix filtering and route limits to the partner adjacency.
  3. Ensure next-hop reachability through the IGP or apply next-hop-self at an appropriate border as designed.
  4. Use an appropriate IS-IS overload-bit maintenance procedure before removing the router from transit service.

Explanation

Correct Answer

B:

Apply explicit BGP inbound prefix filtering and route limits to the partner adjacency. This action addresses the stated design problem. Route policy can prevent undesired BGP NLRI from entering the local routing system. A practical confirmation is: Only approved partner prefixes are accepted and excess or private prefixes are rejected and logged. The multisite healthcare network 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 policy can prevent undesired BGP NLRI from entering the local routing system. The needed response is: Apply explicit BGP inbound prefix filtering and route limits to the partner adjacency.

C:

BGP paths require a reachable next hop in the forwarding plane; distributing the prefix alone is not sufficient. The actual fault is governed by a different mechanism: Route policy can prevent undesired BGP NLRI from entering the local routing system. The needed response is: Apply explicit BGP inbound prefix filtering and route limits to the partner adjacency.

D:

The IS-IS overload bit discourages other routers from selecting the device as intermediate transit when a valid alternative exists. The actual fault is governed by a different mechanism: Route policy can prevent undesired BGP NLRI from entering the local routing system. The needed response is: Apply explicit BGP inbound prefix filtering and route limits to the partner adjacency.

Question 198

In a technical design review: During a predeployment review for a multisite healthcare network, the team discovers this design gap: a partner sends default and private internal prefixes but the enterprise should learn only approved service aggregates. An approval gate requires both a measurable acceptance check and a durable prevention control. Which technical principle BEST explains the design decision?

  1. BGP local preference is used within an AS to prefer an outbound path, with higher values preferred.
  2. Route reflectors reduce the need for every iBGP speaker to peer with every other speaker, while preserving iBGP route propagation rules.
  3. Route policy can prevent undesired BGP NLRI from entering the local routing system.
  4. RFC 3021 /31s can use both addresses on point-to-point links without ordinary network and broadcast host reservations.

Explanation

Correct Answer

C:

Route policy can prevent undesired BGP NLRI from entering the local routing system. The correct engineering response is: Apply explicit BGP inbound prefix filtering and route limits to the partner adjacency. The observable check is: Only approved partner prefixes are accepted and excess or private prefixes are rejected and logged. The multisite healthcare network acceptance record also captures this result.

Incorrect Answers

A:

Route policy can prevent undesired BGP NLRI from entering the local routing system. 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.

B:

Route policy can prevent undesired BGP NLRI from entering the local routing system. 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.

D:

Route policy can prevent undesired BGP NLRI from entering the local routing system. The offered choice instead concerns a different principle: RFC 3021 /31s can use both addresses on point-to-point links without ordinary network and broadcast host reservations. Those technical conditions are not interchangeable.

Question 199

An engineering reviewer needs objective proof for the following: During a predeployment review for a multisite healthcare network, the team discovers this design gap: a partner sends default and private internal prefixes but the enterprise should learn only approved service aggregates. An approval gate requires both a measurable acceptance check and a durable prevention control. Which acceptance observation BEST establishes the intended result?

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

Explanation

Correct Answer

D:

Only approved partner prefixes are accepted and excess or private prefixes are rejected and logged. The multisite healthcare network acceptance record also captures this result. Route policy can prevent undesired BGP NLRI from entering the local routing system.

Incorrect Answers

A:

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, Route policy can prevent undesired BGP NLRI from entering the local routing system. The necessary acceptance evidence is: Only approved partner prefixes are accepted and excess or private prefixes are rejected and logged. The multisite healthcare network acceptance record also captures this result.

B:

BGP paths require a reachable next hop in the forwarding plane; distributing the prefix alone is not sufficient. In the case being tested, Route policy can prevent undesired BGP NLRI from entering the local routing system. The necessary acceptance evidence is: Only approved partner prefixes are accepted and excess or private prefixes are rejected and logged. The multisite healthcare network acceptance record also captures this result.

C:

BGP local preference is used within an AS to prefer an outbound path, with higher values preferred. In the case being tested, Route policy can prevent undesired BGP NLRI from entering the local routing system. The necessary acceptance evidence is: Only approved partner prefixes are accepted and excess or private prefixes are rejected and logged. The multisite healthcare network acceptance record also captures this result.

Question 200

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: a partner sends default and private internal prefixes but the enterprise should learn only approved service aggregates. 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. Maintain peer-specific prefix inventories and review BGP filters before provider changes. Apply the same control to the multisite healthcare network rollout checklist.
  2. Validate multipath equivalence and hashing behavior during capacity tests.
  3. Track advertised AS paths and validate ingress behavior with both providers after changes.
  4. Document and audit local preference policy consistently at ingress border peers.

Explanation

Correct Answer

A:

Maintain peer-specific prefix inventories and review BGP filters before provider changes. Apply the same control to the multisite healthcare network rollout checklist. This control targets the underlying design risk. Route policy can prevent undesired BGP NLRI from entering the local routing system. The follow-up acceptance check remains: Only approved partner prefixes are accepted and excess or private prefixes are rejected and logged. The multisite healthcare network 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 policy can prevent undesired BGP NLRI from entering the local routing system. A directly relevant preventive control is: Maintain peer-specific prefix inventories and review BGP filters before provider changes. Apply the same control to the multisite healthcare network rollout checklist.

C:

AS-path length can influence outside-AS best-path selection but remote networks keep final policy authority. The repeat risk here is different: Route policy can prevent undesired BGP NLRI from entering the local routing system. A directly relevant preventive control is: Maintain peer-specific prefix inventories and review BGP filters before provider changes. Apply the same control to the multisite healthcare network rollout 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: Route policy can prevent undesired BGP NLRI from entering the local routing system. A directly relevant preventive control is: Maintain peer-specific prefix inventories and review BGP filters before provider changes. Apply the same control to the multisite healthcare network rollout checklist.