cert
cert-1
cert-2

Pass Cisco 350-501 Exam in First Attempt Guaranteed!

Get 100% Latest Exam Questions, Accurate & Verified Answers to Pass the Actual Exam!
30 Days Free Updates, Instant Download!

cert-5
cert-6
350-501 Exam - Verified By Experts
350-501 Premium Bundle
$29.98

350-501 Premium Bundle

$79.99
$109.97
  • Premium File 528 Questions & Answers. Last update: Nov 02, 2026
  • Training Course 253 Video Lectures
  • Study Guide 1160 Pages
 
$109.97
$79.99
accept 18 downloads in last 7 days
block-screenshots
Purchase Cisco 350-501 Exam Training Products Individually
Cisco 350-501 Premium File
Premium File 528 Q&A
$76.99$69.99
Cisco 350-501 Video Training Course
Training Course 253 Lectures
$21.99 $19.99
Cisco 350-501 PDF Study Guide
Study Guide 1160 Pages
$21.99 $19.99
Cisco 350-501 Practice Test 48

Question 470

For an original SPCOR service-provider engineering scenario, consider: A customer CE is dual-homed to two EVPN PEs but a network loop develops because both forward the same flooded frame back into the Ethernet segment. Select TWO complementary steps: the targeted correction and its strongest prechange validation.

  1. Check: Map UNI endpoints and approved source-destination pairs, then test leaf-to-leaf and root-to-leaf reachability in the staged EVC.
  2. Change: Configure a consistent Ethernet Segment Identifier and supported designated-forwarder or split-horizon behavior for the multihoming model.
  3. Check: Compare ESI advertisements, DF election, MAC mobility sequence and traffic behavior before and after one PE uplink failure.
  4. Give each multihomed PE a different arbitrary ESI and bridge all customer packets without loop prevention.
  5. Change: Configure consistent service and customer VLAN tag handling with explicit encapsulation and correct cross-PE mapping.

Explanation

Correct Answer

B:

EVPN multihoming coordinates PE participation through Ethernet segment routes and forwarder election to prevent loops and maintain reachability. Evidence: Compare ESI advertisements, DF election, MAC mobility sequence and traffic behavior before and after one PE uplink failure.

C:

EVPN multihoming coordinates PE participation through Ethernet segment routes and forwarder election to prevent loops and maintain reachability. Required intervention: Configure a consistent Ethernet Segment Identifier and supported designated-forwarder or split-horizon behavior for the multihoming model.

Incorrect Answers

A:

Check: Map UNI endpoints and approved source-destination pairs, then test leaf-to-leaf and root-to-leaf reachability in the staged EVC. EVPN multihoming coordinates PE participation through Ethernet segment routes and forwarder election to prevent loops and maintain reachability.

D:

For this select two assessment, the shortcut changes or bypasses the necessary routing, service or operational boundary rather than correcting it. EVPN multihoming coordinates PE participation through Ethernet segment routes and forwarder election to prevent loops and maintain reachability.

E:

Change: Configure consistent service and customer VLAN tag handling with explicit encapsulation and correct cross-PE mapping. EVPN multihoming coordinates PE participation through Ethernet segment routes and forwarder election to prevent loops and maintain reachability.

Question 471

A service provider network engineer is reviewing this backbone or customer-service scenario: An all-active EVPN attachment fails over with duplicate traffic because the two PEs advertise inconsistent Ethernet segment identities. A proposed shortcut is: Give each multihomed PE a different arbitrary ESI and bridge all customer packets without loop prevention. What should the service provider engineer recommend as the narrowly scoped correction? Select ONE best answer.

  1. Configure a consistent Ethernet Segment Identifier and supported designated-forwarder or split-horizon behavior for the multihoming model.
  2. Enable supported ring protection and Ethernet OAM mechanisms to enforce a loop-free normal state and verify service continuity after failure.
  3. Give each multihomed PE a different arbitrary ESI and bridge all customer packets without loop prevention.
  4. Configure consistent service and customer VLAN tag handling with explicit encapsulation and correct cross-PE mapping.

Explanation

Correct Answer

A:

This targeted action addresses the observed service-provider control or forwarding gap without discarding necessary controls. Applied case: An all-active EVPN attachment fails over with duplicate traffic because the two PEs advertise inconsistent Ethernet segment identities.

Incorrect Answers

B:

Enable supported ring protection and Ethernet OAM mechanisms to enforce a loop-free normal state and verify service continuity after failure. EVPN multihoming coordinates PE participation through Ethernet segment routes and forwarder election to prevent loops and maintain reachability.

C:

EVPN multihoming coordinates PE participation through Ethernet segment routes and forwarder election to prevent loops and maintain reachability. Applied case: An all-active EVPN attachment fails over with duplicate traffic because the two PEs advertise inconsistent Ethernet segment identities.

D:

Configure consistent service and customer VLAN tag handling with explicit encapsulation and correct cross-PE mapping. EVPN multihoming coordinates PE participation through Ethernet segment routes and forwarder election to prevent loops and maintain reachability.

Question 472

A Cisco service provider design review finds: An all-active EVPN attachment fails over with duplicate traffic because the two PEs advertise inconsistent Ethernet segment identities. The team proposes: Configure a consistent Ethernet Segment Identifier and supported designated-forwarder or split-horizon behavior for the multihoming model. Which engineering principle most strongly supports the recommended response? Select ONE best answer.

  1. EVPN uses MP-BGP to signal Ethernet MAC or IP reachability and other service state; type-2 and type-5 serve different reachability functions.
  2. EVPN multihoming coordinates PE participation through Ethernet segment routes and forwarder election to prevent loops and maintain reachability.
  3. IEEE 802.1ad provider bridging adds a service tag outside customer VLAN tags, and tag roles must remain consistent through the carrier network.
  4. MVPN extends multicast services through customer VPN contexts, using signaling and core replication trees distinct from ordinary unicast VPN route exchange.

Explanation

Correct Answer

B:

Demonstrable success requires: The dual-homed customer retains connectivity with correct single-copy flooding and no persistent Layer-2 forwarding loops. Applied case: An all-active EVPN attachment fails over with duplicate traffic because the two PEs advertise inconsistent Ethernet segment identities.

Incorrect Answers

A:

EVPN uses MP-BGP to signal Ethernet MAC or IP reachability and other service state; type-2 and type-5 serve different reachability functions. EVPN multihoming coordinates PE participation through Ethernet segment routes and forwarder election to prevent loops and maintain reachability.

C:

IEEE 802.1ad provider bridging adds a service tag outside customer VLAN tags, and tag roles must remain consistent through the carrier network. EVPN multihoming coordinates PE participation through Ethernet segment routes and forwarder election to prevent loops and maintain reachability.

D:

MVPN extends multicast services through customer VPN contexts, using signaling and core replication trees distinct from ordinary unicast VPN route exchange. EVPN multihoming coordinates PE participation through Ethernet segment routes and forwarder election to prevent loops and maintain reachability.

Question 473

The service provider operations team has not yet approved a change. Current evidence indicates: An all-active EVPN attachment fails over with duplicate traffic because the two PEs advertise inconsistent Ethernet segment identities. Which evidence best tests the technical diagnosis before approving a disruptive change? Select ONE best answer.

  1. Check class-map matches, DSCP or MPLS TC, policer violations, shaping queue depth, WRED counters and customer throughput during controlled congestion.
  2. Trace VPNv4 advertisements, ASBR or RR roles, per-hop label stack and route-target import on a two-AS test topology.
  3. Check labeled route handoff, VRF or transport separation, next-hop reachability and a representative downstream customer LSP.
  4. Compare ESI advertisements, DF election, MAC mobility sequence and traffic behavior before and after one PE uplink failure.

Explanation

Correct Answer

D:

EVPN multihoming coordinates PE participation through Ethernet segment routes and forwarder election to prevent loops and maintain reachability. This check tests the actual routing, transport or service boundary before an operationally risky response.

Incorrect Answers

A:

Check class-map matches, DSCP or MPLS TC, policer violations, shaping queue depth, WRED counters and customer throughput during controlled congestion. EVPN multihoming coordinates PE participation through Ethernet segment routes and forwarder election to prevent loops and maintain reachability.

B:

Trace VPNv4 advertisements, ASBR or RR roles, per-hop label stack and route-target import on a two-AS test topology. EVPN multihoming coordinates PE participation through Ethernet segment routes and forwarder election to prevent loops and maintain reachability.

C:

Check labeled route handoff, VRF or transport separation, next-hop reachability and a representative downstream customer LSP. An all-active EVPN attachment fails over with duplicate traffic because the two PEs advertise inconsistent Ethernet segment identities.

Question 474

A candidate correction has been tested and the platform team requires a post-change acceptance check. Original problem: An all-active EVPN attachment fails over with duplicate traffic because the two PEs advertise inconsistent Ethernet segment identities. 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.

  1. Subscribers receive only authorized group and source traffic with no unnecessary replication to idle access ports.
  2. Customers reach only approved shared services and internet egress while peer-to-peer tenant access remains restricted.
  3. High-priority services meet policy while excess traffic is bounded and ordinary customer classes retain their contracted forwarding share.
  4. The dual-homed customer retains connectivity with correct single-copy flooding and no persistent Layer-2 forwarding loops.

Explanation

Correct Answer

D:

EVPN multihoming coordinates PE participation through Ethernet segment routes and forwarder election to prevent loops and maintain reachability. The approved implementation step was: Configure a consistent Ethernet Segment Identifier and supported designated-forwarder or split-horizon behavior for the multihoming model.

Incorrect Answers

A:

Subscribers receive only authorized group and source traffic with no unnecessary replication to idle access ports. EVPN multihoming coordinates PE participation through Ethernet segment routes and forwarder election to prevent loops and maintain reachability.

B:

Customers reach only approved shared services and internet egress while peer-to-peer tenant access remains restricted. An all-active EVPN attachment fails over with duplicate traffic because the two PEs advertise inconsistent Ethernet segment identities.

C:

High-priority services meet policy while excess traffic is bounded and ordinary customer classes retain their contracted forwarding share. EVPN multihoming coordinates PE participation through Ethernet segment routes and forwarder election to prevent loops and maintain reachability.

Question 475

An implementation sign-off request identifies the following problem: An all-active EVPN attachment fails over with duplicate traffic because the two PEs advertise inconsistent Ethernet segment identities. Which paired technical change and validation should close the implementation review? Select ONE best answer.

  1. Change: Configure the supported mVPN multicast control-plane and provider transport distribution according to receiver membership and traffic scale. Verify: Inspect customer PIM state, mVPN BGP or tree signaling, receiver joins, replication counters and stream reachability between PEs.
  2. Change: Classify at the chosen trust point and apply appropriate bounded priority, policing, shaping and congestion avoidance according to SLA and measured flow behavior. Verify: Check class-map matches, DSCP or MPLS TC, policer violations, shaping queue depth, WRED counters and customer throughput during controlled congestion.
  3. Change: Match ingress encapsulation, symmetric tag rewrite and EVC service instances to the contracted UNI format end to end. Verify: Capture tagged or untagged frames at both UNIs, check service instance counters and confirm expected VLAN identity after a full round trip.
  4. Change: Configure a consistent Ethernet Segment Identifier and supported designated-forwarder or split-horizon behavior for the multihoming model. Verify: Compare ESI advertisements, DF election, MAC mobility sequence and traffic behavior before and after one PE uplink failure.

Explanation

Correct Answer

D:

EVPN multihoming coordinates PE participation through Ethernet segment routes and forwarder election to prevent loops and maintain reachability. The change is successful only when: The dual-homed customer retains connectivity with correct single-copy flooding and no persistent Layer-2 forwarding loops.

Incorrect Answers

A:

Change: Configure the supported mVPN multicast control-plane and provider transport distribution according to receiver membership and traffic scale.

B:

Change: Classify at the chosen trust point and apply appropriate bounded priority, policing, shaping and congestion avoidance according to SLA and measured flow behavior.

C:

Change: Match ingress encapsulation, symmetric tag rewrite and EVC service instances to the contracted UNI format end to end.

Question 476

A service provider network engineer is reviewing this backbone or customer-service scenario: Two carriers agree to exchange customer VPN routes but advertise them over ordinary IPv4 unicast with no route-target or label context across the inter-AS boundary. A proposed shortcut is: Exchange unqualified internet routes between carriers and assume all customers now have isolated inter-AS MPLS VPN service. What should the service provider engineer recommend as the narrowly scoped correction? Select ONE best answer.

  1. Exchange unqualified internet routes between carriers and assume all customers now have isolated inter-AS MPLS VPN service.
  2. Select the supported Inter-AS VPN option and validate labeled VPN route exchange, route targets and transport next-hop resolution at each boundary.
  3. Classify at the chosen trust point and apply appropriate bounded priority, policing, shaping and congestion avoidance according to SLA and measured flow behavior.
  4. Use matching IGMP or MLD listener protocols and supported source-filtering behavior on the appropriate IPv4 or IPv6 access segment.

Explanation

Correct Answer

B:

This targeted action addresses the observed service-provider control or forwarding gap without discarding necessary controls. Applied case: Two carriers agree to exchange customer VPN routes but advertise them over ordinary IPv4 unicast with no route-target or label context across the inter-AS boundary.

Incorrect Answers

A:

Inter-AS L3VPN designs extend VPN signaling across AS boundaries with option-specific control-plane and label requirements; route visibility does not alone prove data-plane continuity. For this best change assessment, the shortcut changes or bypasses the necessary routing, service or operational boundary rather than correcting it.

C:

Classify at the chosen trust point and apply appropriate bounded priority, policing, shaping and congestion avoidance according to SLA and measured flow behavior. Inter-AS L3VPN designs extend VPN signaling across AS boundaries with option-specific control-plane and label requirements; route visibility does not alone prove data-plane continuity.

D:

Use matching IGMP or MLD listener protocols and supported source-filtering behavior on the appropriate IPv4 or IPv6 access segment. Inter-AS L3VPN designs extend VPN signaling across AS boundaries with option-specific control-plane and label requirements; route visibility does not alone prove data-plane continuity.

Question 477

A Cisco service provider design review finds: Two carriers agree to exchange customer VPN routes but advertise them over ordinary IPv4 unicast with no route-target or label context across the inter-AS boundary. The team proposes: Select the supported Inter-AS VPN option and validate labeled VPN route exchange, route targets and transport next-hop resolution at each boundary. Which engineering principle most strongly supports the recommended response? Select ONE best answer.

  1. IGMP manages IPv4 multicast listener memberships, MLD handles IPv6, and source-specific filtering depends on listener protocol and switch or router support.
  2. IEEE 802.1ad provider bridging adds a service tag outside customer VLAN tags, and tag roles must remain consistent through the carrier network.
  3. E-Line is point-to-point, E-LAN is multipoint and E-Tree distinguishes root and leaf connectivity, requiring deliberate forwarding restrictions.
  4. Inter-AS L3VPN designs extend VPN signaling across AS boundaries with option-specific control-plane and label requirements; route visibility does not alone prove data-plane continuity.

Explanation

Correct Answer

D:

Demonstrable success requires: Only authorized customer VPNs extend between providers and payload forwarding follows a valid label-switched or agreed interconnect path. Applied case: Two carriers agree to exchange customer VPN routes but advertise them over ordinary IPv4 unicast with no route-target or label context across the inter-AS boundary.

Incorrect Answers

A:

IGMP manages IPv4 multicast listener memberships, MLD handles IPv6, and source-specific filtering depends on listener protocol and switch or router support. Inter-AS L3VPN designs extend VPN signaling across AS boundaries with option-specific control-plane and label requirements; route visibility does not alone prove data-plane continuity.

B:

IEEE 802.1ad provider bridging adds a service tag outside customer VLAN tags, and tag roles must remain consistent through the carrier network. Inter-AS L3VPN designs extend VPN signaling across AS boundaries with option-specific control-plane and label requirements; route visibility does not alone prove data-plane continuity.

C:

This option addresses a different service provider engineering topic (Carrier Ethernet E-Line E-LAN and E-Tree service models) rather than the documented Inter-AS MPLS L3VPN route exchange and labels decision.

Question 478

The service provider operations team has not yet approved a change. Current evidence indicates: Two carriers agree to exchange customer VPN routes but advertise them over ordinary IPv4 unicast with no route-target or label context across the inter-AS boundary. Which evidence best tests the technical diagnosis before approving a disruptive change? Select ONE best answer.

  1. Examine VRF route tables, RD, RT extended communities, MP-BGP updates and the transport plus VPN label stack.
  2. Compare ESI advertisements, DF election, MAC mobility sequence and traffic behavior before and after one PE uplink failure.
  3. Trace VPNv4 advertisements, ASBR or RR roles, per-hop label stack and route-target import on a two-AS test topology.
  4. Capture tagged or untagged frames at both UNIs, check service instance counters and confirm expected VLAN identity after a full round trip.

Explanation

Correct Answer

C:

Inter-AS L3VPN designs extend VPN signaling across AS boundaries with option-specific control-plane and label requirements; route visibility does not alone prove data-plane continuity. Applied case: Two carriers agree to exchange customer VPN routes but advertise them over ordinary IPv4 unicast with no route-target or label context across the inter-AS boundary.

Incorrect Answers

A:

Examine VRF route tables, RD, RT extended communities, MP-BGP updates and the transport plus VPN label stack. Inter-AS L3VPN designs extend VPN signaling across AS boundaries with option-specific control-plane and label requirements; route visibility does not alone prove data-plane continuity.

B:

Compare ESI advertisements, DF election, MAC mobility sequence and traffic behavior before and after one PE uplink failure. Inter-AS L3VPN designs extend VPN signaling across AS boundaries with option-specific control-plane and label requirements; route visibility does not alone prove data-plane continuity.

D:

Capture tagged or untagged frames at both UNIs, check service instance counters and confirm expected VLAN identity after a full round trip. Inter-AS L3VPN designs extend VPN signaling across AS boundaries with option-specific control-plane and label requirements; route visibility does not alone prove data-plane continuity.

Question 479

A candidate correction has been tested and the platform team requires a post-change acceptance check. Original problem: Two carriers agree to exchange customer VPN routes but advertise them over ordinary IPv4 unicast with no route-target or label context across the inter-AS boundary. 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.

  1. Customers reach only approved shared services and internet egress while peer-to-peer tenant access remains restricted.
  2. Each customer reaches only its own remote sites despite overlapping addresses and the expected VPN routes import correctly.
  3. Only authorized customer VPNs extend between providers and payload forwarding follows a valid label-switched or agreed interconnect path.
  4. The dual-homed customer retains connectivity with correct single-copy flooding and no persistent Layer-2 forwarding loops.

Explanation

Correct Answer

C:

Inter-AS L3VPN designs extend VPN signaling across AS boundaries with option-specific control-plane and label requirements; route visibility does not alone prove data-plane continuity. The result must be validated using the documented device, service or access context.

Incorrect Answers

A:

Customers reach only approved shared services and internet egress while peer-to-peer tenant access remains restricted. Inter-AS L3VPN designs extend VPN signaling across AS boundaries with option-specific control-plane and label requirements; route visibility does not alone prove data-plane continuity.

B:

Each customer reaches only its own remote sites despite overlapping addresses and the expected VPN routes import correctly. Inter-AS L3VPN designs extend VPN signaling across AS boundaries with option-specific control-plane and label requirements; route visibility does not alone prove data-plane continuity.

D:

The dual-homed customer retains connectivity with correct single-copy flooding and no persistent Layer-2 forwarding loops. Inter-AS L3VPN designs extend VPN signaling across AS boundaries with option-specific control-plane and label requirements; route visibility does not alone prove data-plane continuity.

Question 480

For an original SPCOR service-provider engineering scenario, consider: Two carriers agree to exchange customer VPN routes but advertise them over ordinary IPv4 unicast with no route-target or label context across the inter-AS boundary. Select TWO complementary steps: the targeted correction and its strongest prechange validation.

  1. Exchange unqualified internet routes between carriers and assume all customers now have isolated inter-AS MPLS VPN service.
  2. Check: Capture ingress and egress Ethernet frames including TPID, tag stack and VLAN IDs for two isolated customers.
  3. Check: Trace VPNv4 advertisements, ASBR or RR roles, per-hop label stack and route-target import on a two-AS test topology.
  4. Change: Match ingress encapsulation, symmetric tag rewrite and EVC service instances to the contracted UNI format end to end.
  5. Change: Select the supported Inter-AS VPN option and validate labeled VPN route exchange, route targets and transport next-hop resolution at each boundary.

Explanation

Correct Answer

C:

Inter-AS L3VPN designs extend VPN signaling across AS boundaries with option-specific control-plane and label requirements; route visibility does not alone prove data-plane continuity. Acceptance: Only authorized customer VPNs extend between providers and payload forwarding follows a valid label-switched or agreed interconnect path.

E:

Inter-AS L3VPN designs extend VPN signaling across AS boundaries with option-specific control-plane and label requirements; route visibility does not alone prove data-plane continuity. Evidence: Trace VPNv4 advertisements, ASBR or RR roles, per-hop label stack and route-target import on a two-AS test topology.

Incorrect Answers

A:

For this select two assessment, the shortcut changes or bypasses the necessary routing, service or operational boundary rather than correcting it. Inter-AS L3VPN designs extend VPN signaling across AS boundaries with option-specific control-plane and label requirements; route visibility does not alone prove data-plane continuity.

B:

Check: Capture ingress and egress Ethernet frames including TPID, tag stack and VLAN IDs for two isolated customers. Inter-AS L3VPN designs extend VPN signaling across AS boundaries with option-specific control-plane and label requirements; route visibility does not alone prove data-plane continuity.

D:

Change: Match ingress encapsulation, symmetric tag rewrite and EVC service instances to the contracted UNI format end to end. Inter-AS L3VPN designs extend VPN signaling across AS boundaries with option-specific control-plane and label requirements; route visibility does not alone prove data-plane continuity.

Implementing and Operating Cisco Service Provider Network Core Technologies (SPCOR) (350-501) Practice Tests