McAfee Secured

Cisco 300-410 Bundle

Exam Code: 300-410

Exam Name Implementing Cisco Enterprise Advanced Routing and Services (ENARSI)

Certification Provider: Cisco

Corresponding Certification: CCNP Enterprise

Cisco 300-410 Bundle $25.00

Pass Cisco 300-410 with Real Questions From Testking

Download Web's Best 300-410 Exam Preparation Materials Today

  • Questions & Answers

    300-410 Questions & Answers

    498 Questions & Answers

    Questions & Answers Testing Engine software allows you to practice questions and answers in real 300-410 exam environment.

  • 300-410 Video Course

    300-410 Video Course

    129 Video Lectures

    300-410 Video Course is developed by Cisco Professionals to help you pass 300-410 exam.

    Description

    This course will improve your knowledge and skills required to pass Implementing Cisco Enterprise Advanced Routing and Services (ENARSI) exam.

Implementing Cisco Enterprise Advanced Routing and Services (ENARSI) (300-410) Practice Tests

Satisfaction Guaranteed

Money Back Guarantee

Testking provides hassle-free money back guarantee with our products. That is because we have 100% trust in the abilities of our professional and experience product team, and our record is a proof of that.

99.6% PASS RATE
Total Cost: $164.98
Bundle Price: $139.98

Purchase Individually

  • Questions & Answers

    Questions & Answers

    498 Questions

    $124.99
  • 300-410 Video Course

    Video Course

    129 Video Lectures

    $39.99

Cisco 300-410 Practice Test 3

Question 20

A route-map used with redistribution has a permit sequence matching a prefix list, but approved routes absent from that list disappear from the receiving protocol. Which lasting design or operational safeguard best prevents this particular issue from recurring?

  1. Write prefix-policy test cases for exact and more-specific prefixes before deploying modifications.
  2. Use approved BFD profiles and avoid untested aggressive timers on constrained links.
  3. Maintain an explicit per-prefix redistribution ownership matrix across protocol boundaries.
  4. Regression-test the default route-map outcome whenever the match policy is edited.

Explanation

Correct Answer

D:

Regression-test the default route-map outcome whenever the match policy is edited. This addresses the recurring cause: Route-maps apply sequence matching and implicitly deny entries that do not match a permitting clause. A targeted acceptance check is: Verify the route-map sequence counters and redistributed prefix set with one matched and one previously unmatched approved route.

Other Answers

A:

Write prefix-policy test cases for exact and more-specific prefixes before deploying modifications. Route-maps apply sequence matching and implicitly deny entries that do not match a permitting clause.

B:

Use approved BFD profiles and avoid untested aggressive timers on constrained links. Route-maps apply sequence matching and implicitly deny entries that do not match a permitting clause.

C:

Maintain an explicit per-prefix redistribution ownership matrix across protocol boundaries. Route-maps apply sequence matching and implicitly deny entries that do not match a permitting clause.

Question 21

A route-map sets a tag on redistributed branch routes, but the tag cannot be found on two new prefixes after a recent configuration change. Which corrective action most directly resolves the documented failure without suppressing unrelated safeguards?

  1. Check the route-map attachment direction and the match clauses for those prefixes before changing the tag value.
  2. Apply a narrowly scoped outbound prefix policy for the peer to include only explicitly approved networks.
  3. Constrain the PBR match list to the approved source subnet and validate the applied route-map sequence.
  4. Use one redistribution owner for the prefix and tag/filter competing external copies at other borders.

Explanation

Correct Answer

A:

Check the route-map attachment direction and the match clauses for those prefixes before changing the tag value. A set action is applied only when the route is processed by the matching permit sequence at the intended redistribution point. Display the actual route-map match counters and confirm the expected tag is attached to each new route.

Other Answers

B:

Apply a narrowly scoped outbound prefix policy for the peer to include only explicitly approved networks. A set action is applied only when the route is processed by the matching permit sequence at the intended redistribution point.

C:

Constrain the PBR match list to the approved source subnet and validate the applied route-map sequence. A set action is applied only when the route is processed by the matching permit sequence at the intended redistribution point.

D:

Use one redistribution owner for the prefix and tag/filter competing external copies at other borders. A set action is applied only when the route is processed by the matching permit sequence at the intended redistribution point.

Question 22

A route-map sets a tag on redistributed branch routes, but the tag cannot be found on two new prefixes after a recent configuration change. Which technical mechanism best explains the behavior observed in this scenario?

  1. A summary represents a broader address block than its component routes; advertised coverage must match the routing design.
  2. A set action is applied only when the route is processed by the matching permit sequence at the intended redistribution point.
  3. An up local interface does not establish end-to-end viability of the PBR-selected next hop.
  4. Uncontrolled bidirectional redistribution can reintroduce an already exported route, producing feedback and unstable route selection.

Explanation

Correct Answer

B:

A set action is applied only when the route is processed by the matching permit sequence at the intended redistribution point. This explains why the initial condition produces the observed failure. The direct repair is: Check the route-map attachment direction and the match clauses for those prefixes before changing the tag value. Validate through: Display the actual route-map match counters and confirm the expected tag is attached to each new route.

Other Answers

A:

A summary represents a broader address block than its component routes; advertised coverage must match the routing design. A set action is applied only when the route is processed by the matching permit sequence at the intended redistribution point.

C:

An up local interface does not establish end-to-end viability of the PBR-selected next hop. A set action is applied only when the route is processed by the matching permit sequence at the intended redistribution point.

D:

Uncontrolled bidirectional redistribution can reintroduce an already exported route, producing feedback and unstable route selection. A set action is applied only when the route is processed by the matching permit sequence at the intended redistribution point.

Question 23

A route-map sets a tag on redistributed branch routes, but the tag cannot be found on two new prefixes after a recent configuration change. After applying the correction, which verification evidence most directly demonstrates that this issue is resolved?

  1. Demonstrate matched traffic failing over when an upstream reachability probe fails while unrelated traffic remains unaffected.
  2. Fail remote reachability and verify SLA state, track transitions and payment traffic shifting to the healthy next hop.
  3. Display the actual route-map match counters and confirm the expected tag is attached to each new route.
  4. Inspect advertisements at the receiving peer and its installed summary route after changing the interface attachment.

Explanation

Correct Answer

C:

Display the actual route-map match counters and confirm the expected tag is attached to each new route. This checks the affected traffic or control-plane behavior, not merely a generic up/down indicator. The underlying mechanism is: A set action is applied only when the route is processed by the matching permit sequence at the intended redistribution point.

Other Answers

A:

Demonstrate matched traffic failing over when an upstream reachability probe fails while unrelated traffic remains unaffected. A set action is applied only when the route is processed by the matching permit sequence at the intended redistribution point.

B:

Fail remote reachability and verify SLA state, track transitions and payment traffic shifting to the healthy next hop. A set action is applied only when the route is processed by the matching permit sequence at the intended redistribution point.

D:

Inspect advertisements at the receiving peer and its installed summary route after changing the interface attachment. A set action is applied only when the route is processed by the matching permit sequence at the intended redistribution point.

Question 24

A route-map sets a tag on redistributed branch routes, but the tag cannot be found on two new prefixes after a recent configuration change. Which lasting design or operational safeguard best prevents this particular issue from recurring?

  1. Require prefix-allocation approval and tests for holes before enabling a broad summary.
  2. Use nonoverlapping match objects and negative test cases for every source-sensitive policy.
  3. Maintain an explicit per-prefix redistribution ownership matrix across protocol boundaries.
  4. Audit route-map references and tag expectations when new redistribution sources or prefixes are introduced.

Explanation

Correct Answer

D:

Audit route-map references and tag expectations when new redistribution sources or prefixes are introduced. This addresses the recurring cause: A set action is applied only when the route is processed by the matching permit sequence at the intended redistribution point. A targeted acceptance check is: Display the actual route-map match counters and confirm the expected tag is attached to each new route.

Other Answers

A:

Require prefix-allocation approval and tests for holes before enabling a broad summary. A set action is applied only when the route is processed by the matching permit sequence at the intended redistribution point.

B:

Use nonoverlapping match objects and negative test cases for every source-sensitive policy. A set action is applied only when the route is processed by the matching permit sequence at the intended redistribution point.

C:

Maintain an explicit per-prefix redistribution ownership matrix across protocol boundaries. A set action is applied only when the route is processed by the matching permit sequence at the intended redistribution point.

Question 25

A branch advertises a summary for 10.44.0.0/16 even though only 10.44.8.0/24 exists; traffic for unused addresses is drawn into a black hole. Which corrective action most directly resolves the documented failure without suppressing unrelated safeguards?

  1. Constrain summary advertisement to the intended reachable coverage or install the needed more-specific reachability design.
  2. Inspect OSPF path type and cost instead of changing interprotocol administrative distance.
  3. Set an appropriate EIGRP seed metric on the redistribution statement or matching route-map.
  4. Attach summarization to the actual outbound interface toward the recipient and check release-dependent syntax.

Explanation

Correct Answer

A:

Constrain summary advertisement to the intended reachable coverage or install the needed more-specific reachability design. A summary represents a broader address block than its component routes; advertised coverage must match the routing design. Test reachability to an active /24 and a deliberately unused /24 while inspecting the advertised summary and discard route.

Other Answers

B:

Inspect OSPF path type and cost instead of changing interprotocol administrative distance. A summary represents a broader address block than its component routes; advertised coverage must match the routing design.

C:

Set an appropriate EIGRP seed metric on the redistribution statement or matching route-map. A summary represents a broader address block than its component routes; advertised coverage must match the routing design.

D:

Attach summarization to the actual outbound interface toward the recipient and check release-dependent syntax. A summary represents a broader address block than its component routes; advertised coverage must match the routing design.

Question 26

A branch advertises a summary for 10.44.0.0/16 even though only 10.44.8.0/24 exists; traffic for unused addresses is drawn into a black hole. Which technical mechanism best explains the behavior observed in this scenario?

  1. EIGRP must have an initial composite metric for redistributed routes; a missing metric prevents usable injection.
  2. A summary represents a broader address block than its component routes; advertised coverage must match the routing design.
  3. Redistributing the same origin from multiple protocols can cause multiple external candidates and route-feedback hazards.
  4. Policy route-map actions operate on the traffic matched by the ACL or match clause, including unintended overlaps.

Explanation

Correct Answer

B:

A summary represents a broader address block than its component routes; advertised coverage must match the routing design. This explains why the initial condition produces the observed failure. The direct repair is: Constrain summary advertisement to the intended reachable coverage or install the needed more-specific reachability design. Validate through: Test reachability to an active /24 and a deliberately unused /24 while inspecting the advertised summary and discard route.

Other Answers

A:

EIGRP must have an initial composite metric for redistributed routes; a missing metric prevents usable injection. A summary represents a broader address block than its component routes; advertised coverage must match the routing design.

C:

Redistributing the same origin from multiple protocols can cause multiple external candidates and route-feedback hazards. A summary represents a broader address block than its component routes; advertised coverage must match the routing design.

D:

Policy route-map actions operate on the traffic matched by the ACL or match clause, including unintended overlaps. A summary represents a broader address block than its component routes; advertised coverage must match the routing design.

Question 27

A branch advertises a summary for 10.44.0.0/16 even though only 10.44.8.0/24 exists; traffic for unused addresses is drawn into a black hole. After applying the correction, which verification evidence most directly demonstrates that this issue is resolved?

  1. Inspect advertisements at the receiving peer and its installed summary route after changing the interface attachment.
  2. Verify EIGRP external route entries and the configured metric components after applying the redistribution policy.
  3. Test reachability to an active /24 and a deliberately unused /24 while inspecting the advertised summary and discard route.
  4. Show the default route and recursive next hop under the tenant VRF, then test client traffic.

Explanation

Correct Answer

C:

Test reachability to an active /24 and a deliberately unused /24 while inspecting the advertised summary and discard route. This checks the affected traffic or control-plane behavior, not merely a generic up/down indicator. The underlying mechanism is: A summary represents a broader address block than its component routes; advertised coverage must match the routing design.

Other Answers

A:

Inspect advertisements at the receiving peer and its installed summary route after changing the interface attachment. A summary represents a broader address block than its component routes; advertised coverage must match the routing design.

B:

Verify EIGRP external route entries and the configured metric components after applying the redistribution policy. A summary represents a broader address block than its component routes; advertised coverage must match the routing design.

D:

Show the default route and recursive next hop under the tenant VRF, then test client traffic. A summary represents a broader address block than its component routes; advertised coverage must match the routing design.

Question 28

A branch advertises a summary for 10.44.0.0/16 even though only 10.44.8.0/24 exists; traffic for unused addresses is drawn into a black hole. Which lasting design or operational safeguard best prevents this particular issue from recurring?

  1. Add source-based forwarding tests to change validation for every PBR deployment.
  2. Use nonoverlapping match objects and negative test cases for every source-sensitive policy.
  3. Maintain an explicit per-prefix redistribution ownership matrix across protocol boundaries.
  4. Require prefix-allocation approval and tests for holes before enabling a broad summary.

Explanation

Correct Answer

D:

Require prefix-allocation approval and tests for holes before enabling a broad summary. This addresses the recurring cause: A summary represents a broader address block than its component routes; advertised coverage must match the routing design. A targeted acceptance check is: Test reachability to an active /24 and a deliberately unused /24 while inspecting the advertised summary and discard route.

Other Answers

A:

Add source-based forwarding tests to change validation for every PBR deployment. A summary represents a broader address block than its component routes; advertised coverage must match the routing design.

B:

Use nonoverlapping match objects and negative test cases for every source-sensitive policy. A summary represents a broader address block than its component routes; advertised coverage must match the routing design.

C:

Maintain an explicit per-prefix redistribution ownership matrix across protocol boundaries. A summary represents a broader address block than its component routes; advertised coverage must match the routing design.

Question 29

A router redistributes connected interfaces into BGP and unintentionally announces a point-to-point management subnet to an external peer. Which corrective action most directly resolves the documented failure without suppressing unrelated safeguards?

  1. Apply a narrowly scoped outbound prefix policy for the peer to include only explicitly approved networks.
  2. Inspect the ingress interface's PBR route-map and correct the matched next-hop action for the affected source.
  3. Bind the approved PBR next-hop selection to an effective tracked reachability condition and provide fallback forwarding.
  4. Use one redistribution owner for the prefix and tag/filter competing external copies at other borders.

Explanation

Correct Answer

A:

Apply a narrowly scoped outbound prefix policy for the peer to include only explicitly approved networks. Unfiltered redistribution can leak internal connected routes regardless of whether they are useful or appropriate externally. Inspect received prefixes at the external peer and show the management subnet absent while customer prefixes remain.

Other Answers

B:

Inspect the ingress interface's PBR route-map and correct the matched next-hop action for the affected source. Unfiltered redistribution can leak internal connected routes regardless of whether they are useful or appropriate externally.

C:

Bind the approved PBR next-hop selection to an effective tracked reachability condition and provide fallback forwarding. Unfiltered redistribution can leak internal connected routes regardless of whether they are useful or appropriate externally.

D:

Use one redistribution owner for the prefix and tag/filter competing external copies at other borders. Unfiltered redistribution can leak internal connected routes regardless of whether they are useful or appropriate externally.

Question 30

A router redistributes connected interfaces into BGP and unintentionally announces a point-to-point management subnet to an external peer. Which technical mechanism best explains the behavior observed in this scenario?

  1. Uncontrolled bidirectional redistribution can reintroduce an already exported route, producing feedback and unstable route selection.
  2. Unfiltered redistribution can leak internal connected routes regardless of whether they are useful or appropriate externally.
  3. Once the route source is OSPF, OSPF's own path-selection rules determine its best candidate before RIB comparison.
  4. A scheduled IP SLA probe tests remote path availability; a track object exposes that result to a route or policy decision.

Explanation

Correct Answer

B:

Unfiltered redistribution can leak internal connected routes regardless of whether they are useful or appropriate externally. This explains why the initial condition produces the observed failure. The direct repair is: Apply a narrowly scoped outbound prefix policy for the peer to include only explicitly approved networks. Validate through: Inspect received prefixes at the external peer and show the management subnet absent while customer prefixes remain.

Other Answers

A:

Uncontrolled bidirectional redistribution can reintroduce an already exported route, producing feedback and unstable route selection. Unfiltered redistribution can leak internal connected routes regardless of whether they are useful or appropriate externally.

C:

Once the route source is OSPF, OSPF's own path-selection rules determine its best candidate before RIB comparison. Unfiltered redistribution can leak internal connected routes regardless of whether they are useful or appropriate externally.

D:

A scheduled IP SLA probe tests remote path availability; a track object exposes that result to a route or policy decision. Unfiltered redistribution can leak internal connected routes regardless of whether they are useful or appropriate externally.