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 39

Question 380

A preventive architecture review covers this situation: A regional aggregation campus redistributes the same prefixes between OSPF and EIGRP at two locations, risking feedback loops. Which preventive design control MOST DIRECTLY addresses this specific risk?

  1. Review cross-VRF route targets or leaks as formal security change requests.
  2. Maintain a centralized redistribution matrix and prevent untagged re-imports.
  3. Tie building subnet allocation rules to tested summarization policies.
  4. Reassess traffic matrices and failure domains after each new campus onboarding.

Explanation

Correct Answer

B:

Maintain a centralized redistribution matrix and prevent untagged re-imports. This control targets the underlying design risk. Two-way redistribution can reintroduce routes into their source protocol without policy guards. The follow-up acceptance check remains: Test prefixes appear only in approved protocols with expected tags and no persistent route oscillation.

Incorrect Answers

A:

VRFs maintain logically separate routing and forwarding contexts on capable shared devices. The repeat risk here is different: Two-way redistribution can reintroduce routes into their source protocol without policy guards. A directly relevant preventive control is: Maintain a centralized redistribution matrix and prevent untagged re-imports.

C:

Route summarization reduces upstream route detail and contains changes within appropriate campus areas. The repeat risk here is different: Two-way redistribution can reintroduce routes into their source protocol without policy guards. A directly relevant preventive control is: Maintain a centralized redistribution matrix and prevent untagged re-imports.

D:

A documented hierarchy can limit topology complexity while preserving critical backup paths. The repeat risk here is different: Two-way redistribution can reintroduce routes into their source protocol without policy guards. A directly relevant preventive control is: Maintain a centralized redistribution matrix and prevent untagged re-imports.

Question 381

A new campus or WAN review presents this constraint: During a predeployment review for a medical center network, the team discovers this design gap: a regional aggregation campus redistributes the same prefixes between OSPF and EIGRP at two locations, risking feedback loops. An approval gate requires both a measurable acceptance check and a durable prevention control. Which action MOST DIRECTLY meets the stated design requirement?

  1. Summarize routes at each building’s Layer 3 aggregation boundary using valid address plan blocks.
  2. Use VRFs with explicit route-leak policy only for approved shared services.
  3. Use separate virtual networks and appropriate group-based policy instead of merely renaming VLANs.
  4. Control redistribution with route tagging, filtering and clearly defined ownership of redistributed prefixes.

Explanation

Correct Answer

D:

Control redistribution with route tagging, filtering and clearly defined ownership of redistributed prefixes. This action addresses the stated design problem. Two-way redistribution can reintroduce routes into their source protocol without policy guards. A practical confirmation is: Test prefixes appear only in approved protocols with expected tags and no persistent route oscillation. The medical center network acceptance record also captures this result.

Incorrect Answers

A:

Route summarization reduces upstream route detail and contains changes within appropriate campus areas. The actual fault is governed by a different mechanism: Two-way redistribution can reintroduce routes into their source protocol without policy guards. The needed response is: Control redistribution with route tagging, filtering and clearly defined ownership of redistributed prefixes.

B:

VRFs maintain logically separate routing and forwarding contexts on capable shared devices. The actual fault is governed by a different mechanism: Two-way redistribution can reintroduce routes into their source protocol without policy guards. The needed response is: Control redistribution with route tagging, filtering and clearly defined ownership of redistributed prefixes.

C:

SDA virtualization separates routing domains, while identity-based segmentation can further control communication. The actual fault is governed by a different mechanism: Two-way redistribution can reintroduce routes into their source protocol without policy guards. The needed response is: Control redistribution with route tagging, filtering and clearly defined ownership of redistributed prefixes.

Question 382

For this Cisco ENSLD design case: During a predeployment review for a medical center network, the team discovers this design gap: a regional aggregation campus redistributes the same prefixes between OSPF and EIGRP at two locations, risking feedback loops. An approval gate requires both a measurable acceptance check and a durable prevention control. Which technical principle BEST explains the design decision?

  1. Two-way redistribution can reintroduce routes into their source protocol without policy guards.
  2. Routing boundaries limit broadcast and spanning-tree failure domains compared with indiscriminate Layer 2 stretch.
  3. Route summarization reduces upstream route detail and contains changes within appropriate campus areas.
  4. VRFs maintain logically separate routing and forwarding contexts on capable shared devices.

Explanation

Correct Answer

A:

Two-way redistribution can reintroduce routes into their source protocol without policy guards. The correct engineering response is: Control redistribution with route tagging, filtering and clearly defined ownership of redistributed prefixes. The observable check is: Test prefixes appear only in approved protocols with expected tags and no persistent route oscillation. The medical center network acceptance record also captures this result.

Incorrect Answers

B:

Two-way redistribution can reintroduce routes into their source protocol without policy guards. The offered choice instead concerns a different principle: Routing boundaries limit broadcast and spanning-tree failure domains compared with indiscriminate Layer 2 stretch. Those technical conditions are not interchangeable.

C:

Two-way redistribution can reintroduce routes into their source protocol without policy guards. The offered choice instead concerns a different principle: Route summarization reduces upstream route detail and contains changes within appropriate campus areas. Those technical conditions are not interchangeable.

D:

Two-way redistribution can reintroduce routes into their source protocol without policy guards. The offered choice instead concerns a different principle: VRFs maintain logically separate routing and forwarding contexts on capable shared devices. Those technical conditions are not interchangeable.

Question 383

During acceptance testing for this network design: During a predeployment review for a medical center network, the team discovers this design gap: a regional aggregation campus redistributes the same prefixes between OSPF and EIGRP at two locations, risking feedback loops. An approval gate requires both a measurable acceptance check and a durable prevention control. Which acceptance observation BEST establishes the intended result?

  1. A local Layer 2 fault does not propagate across the site interconnect and routed applications remain reachable.
  2. Test prefixes appear only in approved protocols with expected tags and no persistent route oscillation. The medical center network acceptance record also captures this result.
  3. Tenant prefixes remain isolated while selected shared-service routes appear only where authorized.
  4. The core retains working building aggregates without unnecessary component-prefix churn.

Explanation

Correct Answer

B:

Test prefixes appear only in approved protocols with expected tags and no persistent route oscillation. The medical center network acceptance record also captures this result. Two-way redistribution can reintroduce routes into their source protocol without policy guards.

Incorrect Answers

A:

Routing boundaries limit broadcast and spanning-tree failure domains compared with indiscriminate Layer 2 stretch. In the case being tested, Two-way redistribution can reintroduce routes into their source protocol without policy guards. The necessary acceptance evidence is: Test prefixes appear only in approved protocols with expected tags and no persistent route oscillation. The medical center network acceptance record also captures this result.

C:

VRFs maintain logically separate routing and forwarding contexts on capable shared devices. In the case being tested, Two-way redistribution can reintroduce routes into their source protocol without policy guards. The necessary acceptance evidence is: Test prefixes appear only in approved protocols with expected tags and no persistent route oscillation. The medical center network acceptance record also captures this result.

D:

Route summarization reduces upstream route detail and contains changes within appropriate campus areas. In the case being tested, Two-way redistribution can reintroduce routes into their source protocol without policy guards. The necessary acceptance evidence is: Test prefixes appear only in approved protocols with expected tags and no persistent route oscillation. The medical center network acceptance record also captures this result.

Question 384

Operations wants to avoid recurrence of this design flaw: During a predeployment review for a medical center network, the team discovers this design gap: a regional aggregation campus redistributes the same prefixes between OSPF and EIGRP at two locations, risking feedback loops. 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. Tie building subnet allocation rules to tested summarization policies.
  2. Review cross-VRF route targets or leaks as formal security change requests.
  3. Maintain a centralized redistribution matrix and prevent untagged re-imports. Apply the same control to the medical center network rollout checklist.
  4. Review each proposed VLAN extension against documented mobility or application requirements.

Explanation

Correct Answer

C:

Maintain a centralized redistribution matrix and prevent untagged re-imports. Apply the same control to the medical center network rollout checklist. This control targets the underlying design risk. Two-way redistribution can reintroduce routes into their source protocol without policy guards. The follow-up acceptance check remains: Test prefixes appear only in approved protocols with expected tags and no persistent route oscillation. The medical center network acceptance record also captures this result.

Incorrect Answers

A:

Route summarization reduces upstream route detail and contains changes within appropriate campus areas. The repeat risk here is different: Two-way redistribution can reintroduce routes into their source protocol without policy guards. A directly relevant preventive control is: Maintain a centralized redistribution matrix and prevent untagged re-imports. Apply the same control to the medical center network rollout checklist.

B:

VRFs maintain logically separate routing and forwarding contexts on capable shared devices. The repeat risk here is different: Two-way redistribution can reintroduce routes into their source protocol without policy guards. A directly relevant preventive control is: Maintain a centralized redistribution matrix and prevent untagged re-imports. Apply the same control to the medical center network rollout checklist.

D:

Routing boundaries limit broadcast and spanning-tree failure domains compared with indiscriminate Layer 2 stretch. The repeat risk here is different: Two-way redistribution can reintroduce routes into their source protocol without policy guards. A directly relevant preventive control is: Maintain a centralized redistribution matrix and prevent untagged re-imports. Apply the same control to the medical center network rollout checklist.

Question 385

A Cisco enterprise designer reviews the following scenario: A university has separate tenant networks that share physical core routers but must have isolated routing tables. Which action MOST DIRECTLY meets the stated design requirement?

  1. Use VRFs with explicit route-leak policy only for approved shared services.
  2. Control redistribution with route tagging, filtering and clearly defined ownership of redistributed prefixes.
  3. Summarize routes at each building’s Layer 3 aggregation boundary using valid address plan blocks.
  4. Choose a hierarchical dual-hub or partial-mesh routed topology based on traffic, latency and resilience requirements.

Explanation

Correct Answer

A:

Use VRFs with explicit route-leak policy only for approved shared services. This action addresses the stated design problem. VRFs maintain logically separate routing and forwarding contexts on capable shared devices. A practical confirmation is: Tenant prefixes remain isolated while selected shared-service routes appear only where authorized.

Incorrect Answers

B:

Two-way redistribution can reintroduce routes into their source protocol without policy guards. The actual fault is governed by a different mechanism: VRFs maintain logically separate routing and forwarding contexts on capable shared devices. The needed response is: Use VRFs with explicit route-leak policy only for approved shared services.

C:

Route summarization reduces upstream route detail and contains changes within appropriate campus areas. The actual fault is governed by a different mechanism: VRFs maintain logically separate routing and forwarding contexts on capable shared devices. The needed response is: Use VRFs with explicit route-leak policy only for approved shared services.

D:

A documented hierarchy can limit topology complexity while preserving critical backup paths. The actual fault is governed by a different mechanism: VRFs maintain logically separate routing and forwarding contexts on capable shared devices. The needed response is: Use VRFs with explicit route-leak policy only for approved shared services.

Question 386

The network architecture board discusses the following: A university has separate tenant networks that share physical core routers but must have isolated routing tables. Which technical principle BEST explains the design decision?

  1. Route summarization reduces upstream route detail and contains changes within appropriate campus areas.
  2. VRFs maintain logically separate routing and forwarding contexts on capable shared devices.
  3. A documented hierarchy can limit topology complexity while preserving critical backup paths.
  4. Routing boundaries limit broadcast and spanning-tree failure domains compared with indiscriminate Layer 2 stretch.

Explanation

Correct Answer

B:

VRFs maintain logically separate routing and forwarding contexts on capable shared devices. The correct engineering response is: Use VRFs with explicit route-leak policy only for approved shared services. The observable check is: Tenant prefixes remain isolated while selected shared-service routes appear only where authorized.

Incorrect Answers

A:

VRFs maintain logically separate routing and forwarding contexts on capable shared devices. The offered choice instead concerns a different principle: Route summarization reduces upstream route detail and contains changes within appropriate campus areas. Those technical conditions are not interchangeable.

C:

VRFs maintain logically separate routing and forwarding contexts on capable shared devices. The offered choice instead concerns a different principle: a documented hierarchy can limit topology complexity while preserving critical backup paths. Those technical conditions are not interchangeable.

D:

VRFs maintain logically separate routing and forwarding contexts on capable shared devices. The offered choice instead concerns a different principle: Routing boundaries limit broadcast and spanning-tree failure domains compared with indiscriminate Layer 2 stretch. Those technical conditions are not interchangeable.

Question 387

The infrastructure team must validate this situation: A university has separate tenant networks that share physical core routers but must have isolated routing tables. Which acceptance observation BEST establishes the intended result?

  1. A local Layer 2 fault does not propagate across the site interconnect and routed applications remain reachable.
  2. Test prefixes appear only in approved protocols with expected tags and no persistent route oscillation.
  3. Tenant prefixes remain isolated while selected shared-service routes appear only where authorized.
  4. Wireless endpoints receive correct segmentation and remain connected during planned controller or fabric failures.

Explanation

Correct Answer

C:

Tenant prefixes remain isolated while selected shared-service routes appear only where authorized. VRFs maintain logically separate routing and forwarding contexts on capable shared devices.

Incorrect Answers

A:

Routing boundaries limit broadcast and spanning-tree failure domains compared with indiscriminate Layer 2 stretch. In the case being tested, VRFs maintain logically separate routing and forwarding contexts on capable shared devices. The necessary acceptance evidence is: Tenant prefixes remain isolated while selected shared-service routes appear only where authorized.

B:

Two-way redistribution can reintroduce routes into their source protocol without policy guards. In the case being tested, VRFs maintain logically separate routing and forwarding contexts on capable shared devices. The necessary acceptance evidence is: Tenant prefixes remain isolated while selected shared-service routes appear only where authorized.

D:

Fabric-enabled wireless introduces control and forwarding integration choices different from a fully traditional overlay-free WLAN. In the case being tested, VRFs maintain logically separate routing and forwarding contexts on capable shared devices. The necessary acceptance evidence is: Tenant prefixes remain isolated while selected shared-service routes appear only where authorized.

Question 388

A post-incident design review discusses the following: A university has separate tenant networks that share physical core routers but must have isolated routing tables. Which preventive design control MOST DIRECTLY addresses this specific risk?

  1. Maintain a centralized redistribution matrix and prevent untagged re-imports.
  2. Review each proposed VLAN extension against documented mobility or application requirements.
  3. Validate timer, tracking, and gateway ownership changes in scheduled failover drills.
  4. Review cross-VRF route targets or leaks as formal security change requests.

Explanation

Correct Answer

D:

Review cross-VRF route targets or leaks as formal security change requests. This control targets the underlying design risk. VRFs maintain logically separate routing and forwarding contexts on capable shared devices. The follow-up acceptance check remains: Tenant prefixes remain isolated while selected shared-service routes appear only where authorized.

Incorrect Answers

A:

Two-way redistribution can reintroduce routes into their source protocol without policy guards. The repeat risk here is different: VRFs maintain logically separate routing and forwarding contexts on capable shared devices. A directly relevant preventive control is: Review cross-VRF route targets or leaks as formal security change requests.

B:

Routing boundaries limit broadcast and spanning-tree failure domains compared with indiscriminate Layer 2 stretch. The repeat risk here is different: VRFs maintain logically separate routing and forwarding contexts on capable shared devices. A directly relevant preventive control is: Review cross-VRF route targets or leaks as formal security change requests.

C:

An FHRP keeps a stable virtual next-hop address while redundant gateways assume active forwarding roles. The repeat risk here is different: VRFs maintain logically separate routing and forwarding contexts on capable shared devices. A directly relevant preventive control is: Review cross-VRF route targets or leaks as formal security change requests.

Question 389

During a network design workshop, the team finds this issue: During a predeployment review for a mixed-use industrial campus, the team discovers this design gap: a university has separate tenant networks that share physical core routers but must have isolated routing tables. An approval gate requires both a measurable acceptance check and a durable prevention control. Which action MOST DIRECTLY meets the stated design requirement?

  1. Use routed Layer 3 boundaries and local VLANs unless a justified extension requirement exists.
  2. Use VRFs with explicit route-leak policy only for approved shared services.
  3. Control redistribution with route tagging, filtering and clearly defined ownership of redistributed prefixes.
  4. Deploy supported BFD sessions with routing protocols where subsecond failure detection is needed.

Explanation

Correct Answer

B:

Use VRFs with explicit route-leak policy only for approved shared services. This action addresses the stated design problem. VRFs maintain logically separate routing and forwarding contexts on capable shared devices. A practical confirmation is: Tenant prefixes remain isolated while selected shared-service routes appear only where authorized. The mixed-use industrial campus acceptance record also captures this result.

Incorrect Answers

A:

Routing boundaries limit broadcast and spanning-tree failure domains compared with indiscriminate Layer 2 stretch. The actual fault is governed by a different mechanism: VRFs maintain logically separate routing and forwarding contexts on capable shared devices. The needed response is: Use VRFs with explicit route-leak policy only for approved shared services.

C:

Two-way redistribution can reintroduce routes into their source protocol without policy guards. The actual fault is governed by a different mechanism: VRFs maintain logically separate routing and forwarding contexts on capable shared devices. The needed response is: Use VRFs with explicit route-leak policy only for approved shared services.

D:

BFD provides rapid bidirectional path-liveness detection independent of a routing protocol’s slower dead timers. The actual fault is governed by a different mechanism: VRFs maintain logically separate routing and forwarding contexts on capable shared devices. The needed response is: Use VRFs with explicit route-leak policy only for approved shared services.

Question 390

In a technical design review: During a predeployment review for a mixed-use industrial campus, the team discovers this design gap: a university has separate tenant networks that share physical core routers but must have isolated routing tables. An approval gate requires both a measurable acceptance check and a durable prevention control. Which technical principle BEST explains the design decision?

  1. A documented hierarchy can limit topology complexity while preserving critical backup paths.
  2. Two-way redistribution can reintroduce routes into their source protocol without policy guards.
  3. VRFs maintain logically separate routing and forwarding contexts on capable shared devices.
  4. DHCP snooping separates trusted DHCP sources from untrusted access ports and can block rogue server messages.

Explanation

Correct Answer

C:

VRFs maintain logically separate routing and forwarding contexts on capable shared devices. The correct engineering response is: Use VRFs with explicit route-leak policy only for approved shared services. The observable check is: Tenant prefixes remain isolated while selected shared-service routes appear only where authorized. The mixed-use industrial campus acceptance record also captures this result.

Incorrect Answers

A:

VRFs maintain logically separate routing and forwarding contexts on capable shared devices. The offered choice instead concerns a different principle: a documented hierarchy can limit topology complexity while preserving critical backup paths. Those technical conditions are not interchangeable.

B:

VRFs maintain logically separate routing and forwarding contexts on capable shared devices. The offered choice instead concerns a different principle: Two-way redistribution can reintroduce routes into their source protocol without policy guards. Those technical conditions are not interchangeable.

D:

VRFs maintain logically separate routing and forwarding contexts on capable shared devices. The offered choice instead concerns a different principle: DHCP snooping separates trusted DHCP sources from untrusted access ports and can block rogue server messages. Those technical conditions are not interchangeable.