Cisco 350-501 Practice Test 32
Question 310
For an original SPCOR service-provider engineering scenario, consider: A service provider bundles unequal Ethernet members but an operator assumes a single flow automatically uses the sum of all physical link rates. Select TWO complementary steps: the targeted correction and its strongest prechange validation.
- Change: Verify aggregation protocol, member compatibility, hashing expectations and actual active bandwidth before designing redundancy or QoS.
- Change: Align peer AS, transport source, addressing, family activation and supported eBGP hop reachability for the actual topology.
- Check: Evaluate a test table with allowed, denied and boundary prefixes against actual show-policy and BGP advertised-routes evidence.
- Check: Inspect member actor and partner state, bundle hashing, counters and traffic distribution under several representative flows.
- Bond incompatible switchports without checking LACP and promise one TCP flow can exceed an individual member link rate.
Explanation
Correct Answer
A:LACP negotiates compatible members into a logical bundle while per-flow hashing commonly keeps a flow on one member to preserve packet order. Evidence: Inspect member actor and partner state, bundle hashing, counters and traffic distribution under several representative flows.
D:LACP negotiates compatible members into a logical bundle while per-flow hashing commonly keeps a flow on one member to preserve packet order. Required intervention: Verify aggregation protocol, member compatibility, hashing expectations and actual active bandwidth before designing redundancy or QoS.
Incorrect Answers
B:Change: Align peer AS, transport source, addressing, family activation and supported eBGP hop reachability for the actual topology. LACP negotiates compatible members into a logical bundle while per-flow hashing commonly keeps a flow on one member to preserve packet order.
C:Check: Evaluate a test table with allowed, denied and boundary prefixes against actual show-policy and BGP advertised-routes evidence. LACP negotiates compatible members into a logical bundle while per-flow hashing commonly keeps a flow on one member to preserve packet order.
E:For this select two assessment, the shortcut changes or bypasses the necessary routing, service or operational boundary rather than correcting it. LACP negotiates compatible members into a logical bundle while per-flow hashing commonly keeps a flow on one member to preserve packet order.
Question 311
A service provider network engineer is reviewing this backbone or customer-service scenario: A PE core bundle reports Up although one member is suspended because LACP partner key or aggregation settings differ, reducing available capacity. A proposed shortcut is: Bond incompatible switchports without checking LACP and promise one TCP flow can exceed an individual member link rate. What should the service provider engineer recommend as the narrowly scoped correction? Select ONE best answer.
- Bond incompatible switchports without checking LACP and promise one TCP flow can exceed an individual member link rate.
- Diagnose the affected protocol's actual session prerequisites and advertisement scope before changing unrelated routing controls.
- Tune consistent OSPF cost or reference-bandwidth settings and validate reconvergence under controlled link failures.
- Verify aggregation protocol, member compatibility, hashing expectations and actual active bandwidth before designing redundancy or QoS.
Explanation
Correct Answer
D:This targeted action addresses the observed service-provider control or forwarding gap without discarding necessary controls. Applied case: A PE core bundle reports Up although one member is suspended because LACP partner key or aggregation settings differ, reducing available capacity.
Incorrect Answers
A:LACP negotiates compatible members into a logical bundle while per-flow hashing commonly keeps a flow on one member to preserve packet order. Applied case: A PE core bundle reports Up although one member is suspended because LACP partner key or aggregation settings differ, reducing available capacity.
B:Diagnose the affected protocol's actual session prerequisites and advertisement scope before changing unrelated routing controls. LACP negotiates compatible members into a logical bundle while per-flow hashing commonly keeps a flow on one member to preserve packet order.
C:Tune consistent OSPF cost or reference-bandwidth settings and validate reconvergence under controlled link failures. LACP negotiates compatible members into a logical bundle while per-flow hashing commonly keeps a flow on one member to preserve packet order.
Question 312
A Cisco service provider design review finds: A PE core bundle reports Up although one member is suspended because LACP partner key or aggregation settings differ, reducing available capacity. The team proposes: Verify aggregation protocol, member compatibility, hashing expectations and actual active bandwidth before designing redundancy or QoS. Which engineering principle most strongly supports the recommended response? Select ONE best answer.
- Single topology shares reachability assumptions across enabled families, while multi-topology can maintain distinct IPv4 and IPv6 topology information.
- IS-IS SPF selects routes using cumulative link metrics; wide metric support and consistent advertisements matter in modern core designs.
- OSPF SPF evaluates cumulative link costs, including configured interface cost and supported reference-bandwidth scaling, not geographic distance.
- LACP negotiates compatible members into a logical bundle while per-flow hashing commonly keeps a flow on one member to preserve packet order.
Explanation
Correct Answer
D:Demonstrable success requires: Accepted members forward correctly, aggregate capacity reflects active links and service survives an individual member failure. Applied case: A PE core bundle reports Up although one member is suspended because LACP partner key or aggregation settings differ, reducing available capacity.
Incorrect Answers
A:Single topology shares reachability assumptions across enabled families, while multi-topology can maintain distinct IPv4 and IPv6 topology information. LACP negotiates compatible members into a logical bundle while per-flow hashing commonly keeps a flow on one member to preserve packet order.
B:IS-IS SPF selects routes using cumulative link metrics; wide metric support and consistent advertisements matter in modern core designs. LACP negotiates compatible members into a logical bundle while per-flow hashing commonly keeps a flow on one member to preserve packet order.
C:OSPF SPF evaluates cumulative link costs, including configured interface cost and supported reference-bandwidth scaling, not geographic distance. LACP negotiates compatible members into a logical bundle while per-flow hashing commonly keeps a flow on one member to preserve packet order.
Question 313
The service provider operations team has not yet approved a change. Current evidence indicates: A PE core bundle reports Up although one member is suspended because LACP partner key or aggregation settings differ, reducing available capacity. Which evidence best tests the technical diagnosis before approving a disruptive change? Select ONE best answer.
- Compare area LSDB LSA types, ABR summaries, default injection and actual endpoint reachability for inside and outside addresses.
- Inspect member actor and partner state, bundle hashing, counters and traffic distribution under several representative flows.
- Examine advertised route attributes per peer, remote looking-glass paths and measured ingress flows before and after the change.
- Examine NET values, level adjacency state, LSP originator IDs and intended area boundaries on a two-area diagram.
Explanation
Correct Answer
B:LACP negotiates compatible members into a logical bundle while per-flow hashing commonly keeps a flow on one member to preserve packet order. This check tests the actual routing, transport or service boundary before an operationally risky response.
Incorrect Answers
A:Compare area LSDB LSA types, ABR summaries, default injection and actual endpoint reachability for inside and outside addresses. LACP negotiates compatible members into a logical bundle while per-flow hashing commonly keeps a flow on one member to preserve packet order.
C:Examine advertised route attributes per peer, remote looking-glass paths and measured ingress flows before and after the change. A PE core bundle reports Up although one member is suspended because LACP partner key or aggregation settings differ, reducing available capacity.
D:Examine NET values, level adjacency state, LSP originator IDs and intended area boundaries on a two-area diagram. LACP negotiates compatible members into a logical bundle while per-flow hashing commonly keeps a flow on one member to preserve packet order.
Question 314
A candidate correction has been tested and the platform team requires a post-change acceptance check. Original problem: A PE core bundle reports Up although one member is suspended because LACP partner key or aggregation settings differ, reducing available capacity. The carrier operations owner needs positive and negative tests showing existing customer services remain available. Which acceptance result demonstrates correct service provider forwarding and control behavior without disrupting authorized workflows? Select ONE best answer.
- Clients receive intended routes without reflection loops and installed paths resolve to reachable transport next hops.
- Accepted members forward correctly, aggregate capacity reflects active links and service survives an individual member failure.
- Both address families receive valid advertised next hops for the chosen topology mode and failures are diagnosed per family.
- Stable OSPFv3 adjacencies advertise the intended IPv6 prefixes with reachable next hops.
Explanation
Correct Answer
B:LACP negotiates compatible members into a logical bundle while per-flow hashing commonly keeps a flow on one member to preserve packet order. The approved implementation step was: Verify aggregation protocol, member compatibility, hashing expectations and actual active bandwidth before designing redundancy or QoS.
Incorrect Answers
A:Clients receive intended routes without reflection loops and installed paths resolve to reachable transport next hops. A PE core bundle reports Up although one member is suspended because LACP partner key or aggregation settings differ, reducing available capacity.
C:Both address families receive valid advertised next hops for the chosen topology mode and failures are diagnosed per family. A PE core bundle reports Up although one member is suspended because LACP partner key or aggregation settings differ, reducing available capacity.
D:Stable OSPFv3 adjacencies advertise the intended IPv6 prefixes with reachable next hops. LACP negotiates compatible members into a logical bundle while per-flow hashing commonly keeps a flow on one member to preserve packet order.
Question 315
An implementation sign-off request identifies the following problem: A PE core bundle reports Up although one member is suspended because LACP partner key or aggregation settings differ, reducing available capacity. Which paired technical change and validation should close the implementation review? Select ONE best answer.
- Change: Select single- or multi-topology IS-IS according to dual-stack forwarding requirements and verify both address-family reachability and advertised topology data. Verify: Compare IS-IS IPv4 and IPv6 LSP TLVs, topology IDs, next-hop tables and controlled ping tests for each family.
- Change: Apply supported consistent metric style and tune link costs to the provider's intended shortest-path and capacity policy. Verify: Review link metric TLVs, enabled metric style, SPF database and before-after path selection for two candidate routes.
- Change: Evaluate the ordered BGP decision process and set the intended local policy attribute at the correct AS boundary. Verify: Compare valid path candidates and detailed BGP attributes under a test prefix, then trace which decision criterion breaks the tie.
- Change: Verify aggregation protocol, member compatibility, hashing expectations and actual active bandwidth before designing redundancy or QoS. Verify: Inspect member actor and partner state, bundle hashing, counters and traffic distribution under several representative flows.
Explanation
Correct Answer
D:LACP negotiates compatible members into a logical bundle while per-flow hashing commonly keeps a flow on one member to preserve packet order. The change is successful only when: Accepted members forward correctly, aggregate capacity reflects active links and service survives an individual member failure.
Incorrect Answers
A:Change: Select single- or multi-topology IS-IS according to dual-stack forwarding requirements and verify both address-family reachability and advertised topology data. LACP negotiates compatible members into a logical bundle while per-flow hashing commonly keeps a flow on one member to preserve packet order.
B:Change: Apply supported consistent metric style and tune link costs to the provider's intended shortest-path and capacity policy. LACP negotiates compatible members into a logical bundle while per-flow hashing commonly keeps a flow on one member to preserve packet order.
C:Change: Evaluate the ordered BGP decision process and set the intended local policy attribute at the correct AS boundary. LACP negotiates compatible members into a logical bundle while per-flow hashing commonly keeps a flow on one member to preserve packet order.
Question 316
A service provider network engineer is reviewing this backbone or customer-service scenario: Two provider core routers have a healthy OSPF adjacency but form no LDP session because a loopback transport address is unreachable. A proposed shortcut is: Assume successful OSPF route exchange makes LDP operational even when its TCP session and label bindings are absent. What should the service provider engineer recommend as the narrowly scoped correction? Select ONE best answer.
- Assume successful OSPF route exchange makes LDP operational even when its TCP session and label bindings are absent.
- Use supported LDP session protection or targeted discovery with routed transport continuity and bounded recovery timers.
- Verify MPLS forwarding activation, LDP discovery and reachable transport addresses on every required core hop.
- Establish end-to-end transport using documented interarea label distribution and BGP labeled-unicast mechanisms where appropriate.
Explanation
Correct Answer
C:This targeted action addresses the observed service-provider control or forwarding gap without discarding necessary controls. Applied case: Two provider core routers have a healthy OSPF adjacency but form no LDP session because a loopback transport address is unreachable.
Incorrect Answers
A:LDP signaling distributes bindings for forwarding equivalence classes, while an IP routing adjacency alone does not prove label transport is ready. For this best change assessment, the shortcut changes or bypasses the necessary routing, service or operational boundary rather than correcting it.
B:Use supported LDP session protection or targeted discovery with routed transport continuity and bounded recovery timers. LDP signaling distributes bindings for forwarding equivalence classes, while an IP routing adjacency alone does not prove label transport is ready.
D:Establish end-to-end transport using documented interarea label distribution and BGP labeled-unicast mechanisms where appropriate. LDP signaling distributes bindings for forwarding equivalence classes, while an IP routing adjacency alone does not prove label transport is ready.
Question 317
A Cisco service provider design review finds: Two provider core routers have a healthy OSPF adjacency but form no LDP session because a loopback transport address is unreachable. The team proposes: Verify MPLS forwarding activation, LDP discovery and reachable transport addresses on every required core hop. Which engineering principle most strongly supports the recommended response? Select ONE best answer.
- LDP session protection can preserve an established LDP session using alternate IP reachability during local link interruptions but depends on continued peer transport.
- A node SID follows IGP shortest-path semantics, while an adjacency SID identifies a particular link local to its advertising router and must be reached in sequence.
- Unified MPLS extends labeled reachability across IGP boundaries while keeping each IGP domain scalable, but label continuity and next-hop resolution must be designed.
- LDP signaling distributes bindings for forwarding equivalence classes, while an IP routing adjacency alone does not prove label transport is ready.
Explanation
Correct Answer
D:Demonstrable success requires: LDP neighbors become operational on intended links and the requested FEC follows a valid label-switched path end to end. Applied case: Two provider core routers have a healthy OSPF adjacency but form no LDP session because a loopback transport address is unreachable.
Incorrect Answers
A:LDP session protection can preserve an established LDP session using alternate IP reachability during local link interruptions but depends on continued peer transport. This option addresses a different service provider engineering topic (LDP session protection and targeted transport) rather than the documented MPLS LDP neighbor discovery and label switching decision. The case-specific mechanism is: LDP signaling distributes bindings for forwarding equivalence classes, while an IP routing adjacency alone does not prove label transport is ready. The relevant action is: Verify MPLS forwarding activation, LDP discovery and reachable transport addresses on every required core hop. Discriminating evidence: Inspect LDP discovery and session state, transport address routing, label binding and hardware forwarding labels along the path. Applied case: Two provider core routers have a healthy OSPF adjacency but form no LDP session because a loopback transport address is unreachable.
B:A node SID follows IGP shortest-path semantics, while an adjacency SID identifies a particular link local to its advertising router and must be reached in sequence. LDP signaling distributes bindings for forwarding equivalence classes, while an IP routing adjacency alone does not prove label transport is ready.
C:Unified MPLS extends labeled reachability across IGP boundaries while keeping each IGP domain scalable, but label continuity and next-hop resolution must be designed. LDP signaling distributes bindings for forwarding equivalence classes, while an IP routing adjacency alone does not prove label transport is ready.
Question 318
The service provider operations team has not yet approved a change. Current evidence indicates: Two provider core routers have a healthy OSPF adjacency but form no LDP session because a loopback transport address is unreachable. Which evidence best tests the technical diagnosis before approving a disruptive change? Select ONE best answer.
- Trace segment-list execution, SR label stack and the adjacency owner at each hop using a forced parallel-link test.
- Inspect LDP discovery and session state, transport address routing, label binding and hardware forwarding labels along the path.
- Check IPv6 locator advertisements, SID behavior, encapsulation and decapsulation and gateway forwarding for a test VPN or steered flow.
- Inspect incoming and outgoing labels, label stack operation, TTL and traffic class on a lab LSP with and without explicit-null.
Explanation
Correct Answer
B:LDP signaling distributes bindings for forwarding equivalence classes, while an IP routing adjacency alone does not prove label transport is ready. Applied case: Two provider core routers have a healthy OSPF adjacency but form no LDP session because a loopback transport address is unreachable.
Incorrect Answers
A:Trace segment-list execution, SR label stack and the adjacency owner at each hop using a forced parallel-link test. LDP signaling distributes bindings for forwarding equivalence classes, while an IP routing adjacency alone does not prove label transport is ready.
C:Check IPv6 locator advertisements, SID behavior, encapsulation and decapsulation and gateway forwarding for a test VPN or steered flow. LDP signaling distributes bindings for forwarding equivalence classes, while an IP routing adjacency alone does not prove label transport is ready.
D:Inspect incoming and outgoing labels, label stack operation, TTL and traffic class on a lab LSP with and without explicit-null. LDP signaling distributes bindings for forwarding equivalence classes, while an IP routing adjacency alone does not prove label transport is ready.
Question 319
A candidate correction has been tested and the platform team requires a post-change acceptance check. Original problem: Two provider core routers have a healthy OSPF adjacency but form no LDP session because a loopback transport address is unreachable. The carrier operations owner needs positive and negative tests showing existing customer services remain available. Which acceptance result demonstrates correct service provider forwarding and control behavior without disrupting authorized workflows? Select ONE best answer.
- Protected traffic continues through a verified loop-free repair path while IGP converges to a stable new route.
- Each IPv6 segment resolves to its intended endpoint and traffic crosses SR-MPLS to SRv6 boundaries using supported adaptation.
- Targeted traffic follows the active approved policy and reacts predictably when the selected candidate becomes invalid.
- LDP neighbors become operational on intended links and the requested FEC follows a valid label-switched path end to end.
Explanation
Correct Answer
D:LDP signaling distributes bindings for forwarding equivalence classes, while an IP routing adjacency alone does not prove label transport is ready. The result must be validated using the documented device, service or access context.
Incorrect Answers
A:Protected traffic continues through a verified loop-free repair path while IGP converges to a stable new route. LDP signaling distributes bindings for forwarding equivalence classes, while an IP routing adjacency alone does not prove label transport is ready.
B:Each IPv6 segment resolves to its intended endpoint and traffic crosses SR-MPLS to SRv6 boundaries using supported adaptation. LDP signaling distributes bindings for forwarding equivalence classes, while an IP routing adjacency alone does not prove label transport is ready.
C:Targeted traffic follows the active approved policy and reacts predictably when the selected candidate becomes invalid. LDP signaling distributes bindings for forwarding equivalence classes, while an IP routing adjacency alone does not prove label transport is ready.
Question 320
For an original SPCOR service-provider engineering scenario, consider: Two provider core routers have a healthy OSPF adjacency but form no LDP session because a loopback transport address is unreachable. Select TWO complementary steps: the targeted correction and its strongest prechange validation.
- Change: Advertise accurate TE topology and choose a path whose available reservable bandwidth satisfies the RSVP-TE tunnel constraints.
- Change: Verify MPLS forwarding activation, LDP discovery and reachable transport addresses on every required core hop.
- Check: Inspect LDP discovery and session state, transport address routing, label binding and hardware forwarding labels along the path.
- Assume successful OSPF route exchange makes LDP operational even when its TCP session and label bindings are absent.
- Check: Check IPv6 locator advertisements, SID behavior, encapsulation and decapsulation and gateway forwarding for a test VPN or steered flow.
Explanation
Correct Answer
B:LDP signaling distributes bindings for forwarding equivalence classes, while an IP routing adjacency alone does not prove label transport is ready. Evidence: Inspect LDP discovery and session state, transport address routing, label binding and hardware forwarding labels along the path.
C:LDP signaling distributes bindings for forwarding equivalence classes, while an IP routing adjacency alone does not prove label transport is ready. Required intervention: Verify MPLS forwarding activation, LDP discovery and reachable transport addresses on every required core hop.
Incorrect Answers
A:Change: Advertise accurate TE topology and choose a path whose available reservable bandwidth satisfies the RSVP-TE tunnel constraints. LDP signaling distributes bindings for forwarding equivalence classes, while an IP routing adjacency alone does not prove label transport is ready.
D:For this select two assessment, the shortcut changes or bypasses the necessary routing, service or operational boundary rather than correcting it. LDP signaling distributes bindings for forwarding equivalence classes, while an IP routing adjacency alone does not prove label transport is ready.
E:Check: Check IPv6 locator advertisements, SID behavior, encapsulation and decapsulation and gateway forwarding for a test VPN or steered flow. LDP signaling distributes bindings for forwarding equivalence classes, while an IP routing adjacency alone does not prove label transport is ready.
