Cisco 350-501 Practice Test 55
Question 540
For an original SPCOR service-provider engineering scenario, consider: An enterprise customer connects an untagged handoff to a carrier service requiring a tagged internal EVC but the ingress PE never pushes the agreed tag. Select TWO complementary steps: the targeted correction and its strongest prechange validation.
- Translate one direction only and assume every remote CE supports any resulting unannounced tag value.
- Change: Define separate VRFs with correct route distinguishers and coordinated route-target import and export policies and confirm PE-to-PE labeled reachability.
- Check: Capture tagged or untagged frames at both UNIs, check service instance counters and confirm expected VLAN identity after a full round trip.
- Change: Match ingress encapsulation, symmetric tag rewrite and EVC service instances to the contracted UNI format end to end.
- Check: Check class-map matches, DSCP or MPLS TC, policer violations, shaping queue depth, WRED counters and customer throughput during controlled congestion.
Explanation
Correct Answer
C:EVC tag operations such as push pop and translation are contextual to a service instance and may require symmetric rewrite at both attachment points. Required intervention: Match ingress encapsulation, symmetric tag rewrite and EVC service instances to the contracted UNI format end to end.
D:EVC tag operations such as push pop and translation are contextual to a service instance and may require symmetric rewrite at both attachment points. Evidence: Capture tagged or untagged frames at both UNIs, check service instance counters and confirm expected VLAN identity after a full round trip.
Incorrect Answers
A:For this select two assessment, the shortcut changes or bypasses the necessary routing, service or operational boundary rather than correcting it. Applied case: An enterprise customer connects an untagged handoff to a carrier service requiring a tagged internal EVC but the ingress PE never pushes the agreed tag.
B:Change: Define separate VRFs with correct route distinguishers and coordinated route-target import and export policies and confirm PE-to-PE labeled reachability. EVC tag operations such as push pop and translation are contextual to a service instance and may require symmetric rewrite at both attachment points.
E:This option addresses a different service provider engineering topic (QoS classification marking policing shaping and WRED) rather than the documented EVC VLAN push pop rewrite and service delimiting decision.
Question 541
A service provider network engineer is reviewing this backbone or customer-service scenario: A provider translates customer VLAN 100 to carrier VLAN 700 at ingress but forgets the inverse rewrite at egress, leaving the CE unable to recognize its frames. A proposed shortcut is: Translate one direction only and assume every remote CE supports any resulting unannounced tag value. What should the service provider engineer recommend as the narrowly scoped correction? Select ONE best answer.
- Translate one direction only and assume every remote CE supports any resulting unannounced tag value.
- Match ingress encapsulation, symmetric tag rewrite and EVC service instances to the contracted UNI format end to end.
- Build the supported carrier-supporting-carrier transport and routing boundary, retaining customer-carrier control where intended and validating labeled reachability.
- 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: A provider translates customer VLAN 100 to carrier VLAN 700 at ingress but forgets the inverse rewrite at egress, leaving the CE unable to recognize its frames.
Incorrect Answers
A:EVC tag operations such as push pop and translation are contextual to a service instance and may require symmetric rewrite at both attachment points. Applied case: A provider translates customer VLAN 100 to carrier VLAN 700 at ingress but forgets the inverse rewrite at egress, leaving the CE unable to recognize its frames.
C:This option addresses a different service provider engineering topic (Carrier supporting carrier hierarchical VPN transport) rather than the documented EVC VLAN push pop rewrite and service delimiting decision.
D:Use matching IGMP or MLD listener protocols and supported source-filtering behavior on the appropriate IPv4 or IPv6 access segment. EVC tag operations such as push pop and translation are contextual to a service instance and may require symmetric rewrite at both attachment points.
Question 542
A Cisco service provider design review finds: A provider translates customer VLAN 100 to carrier VLAN 700 at ingress but forgets the inverse rewrite at egress, leaving the CE unable to recognize its frames. The team proposes: Match ingress encapsulation, symmetric tag rewrite and EVC service instances to the contracted UNI format end to end. Which engineering principle most strongly supports the recommended response? Select ONE best answer.
- 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.
- EVC tag operations such as push pop and translation are contextual to a service instance and may require symmetric rewrite at both attachment points.
- EVPN uses MP-BGP to signal Ethernet MAC or IP reachability and other service state; type-2 and type-5 serve different reachability functions.
- IGMP manages IPv4 multicast listener memberships, MLD handles IPv6, and source-specific filtering depends on listener protocol and switch or router support.
Explanation
Correct Answer
B:Demonstrable success requires: Customer devices receive frames in the specified tagging format and service VLANs remain separated despite provider translations. Applied case: A provider translates customer VLAN 100 to carrier VLAN 700 at ingress but forgets the inverse rewrite at egress, leaving the CE unable to recognize its frames.
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. EVC tag operations such as push pop and translation are contextual to a service instance and may require symmetric rewrite at both attachment points.
C:This option addresses a different service provider engineering topic (EVPN MAC IP route types and L2 reachability) rather than the documented EVC VLAN push pop rewrite and service delimiting decision.
D:IGMP manages IPv4 multicast listener memberships, MLD handles IPv6, and source-specific filtering depends on listener protocol and switch or router support. A provider translates customer VLAN 100 to carrier VLAN 700 at ingress but forgets the inverse rewrite at egress, leaving the CE unable to recognize its frames.
Question 543
The service provider operations team has not yet approved a change. Current evidence indicates: A provider translates customer VLAN 100 to carrier VLAN 700 at ingress but forgets the inverse rewrite at egress, leaving the CE unable to recognize its frames. Which evidence best tests the technical diagnosis before approving a disruptive change? Select ONE best answer.
- Compare ESI advertisements, DF election, MAC mobility sequence and traffic behavior before and after one PE uplink failure.
- Trace VPNv4 advertisements, ASBR or RR roles, per-hop label stack and route-target import on a two-AS test topology.
- Capture tagged or untagged frames at both UNIs, check service instance counters and confirm expected VLAN identity after a full round trip.
- Inspect ring protection state, OAM continuity-check results, link-failure events and convergence on one forced-ring break.
Explanation
Correct Answer
C:This check tests the actual routing, transport or service boundary before an operationally risky response. Applied case: A provider translates customer VLAN 100 to carrier VLAN 700 at ingress but forgets the inverse rewrite at egress, leaving the CE unable to recognize its frames.
Incorrect Answers
A:Compare ESI advertisements, DF election, MAC mobility sequence and traffic behavior before and after one PE uplink failure. EVC tag operations such as push pop and translation are contextual to a service instance and may require symmetric rewrite at both attachment points.
B:Trace VPNv4 advertisements, ASBR or RR roles, per-hop label stack and route-target import on a two-AS test topology. EVC tag operations such as push pop and translation are contextual to a service instance and may require symmetric rewrite at both attachment points.
D:Inspect ring protection state, OAM continuity-check results, link-failure events and convergence on one forced-ring break. EVC tag operations such as push pop and translation are contextual to a service instance and may require symmetric rewrite at both attachment points.
Question 544
A candidate correction has been tested and the platform team requires a post-change acceptance check. Original problem: A provider translates customer VLAN 100 to carrier VLAN 700 at ingress but forgets the inverse rewrite at egress, leaving the CE unable to recognize its frames. 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.
- Only authorized customer VPNs extend between providers and payload forwarding follows a valid label-switched or agreed interconnect path.
- Customer devices receive frames in the specified tagging format and service VLANs remain separated despite provider translations.
- The ring remains loop-free at steady state and service recovers through the allowed protection topology with traceable alarms.
- Intended subscribers receive the selected source and nonmembers do not trigger unwanted flood or RP dependence.
Explanation
Correct Answer
B:EVC tag operations such as push pop and translation are contextual to a service instance and may require symmetric rewrite at both attachment points. The result must be validated using the documented device, service or access context.
Incorrect Answers
A:Only authorized customer VPNs extend between providers and payload forwarding follows a valid label-switched or agreed interconnect path. EVC tag operations such as push pop and translation are contextual to a service instance and may require symmetric rewrite at both attachment points.
C:The ring remains loop-free at steady state and service recovers through the allowed protection topology with traceable alarms. A provider translates customer VLAN 100 to carrier VLAN 700 at ingress but forgets the inverse rewrite at egress, leaving the CE unable to recognize its frames.
D:Intended subscribers receive the selected source and nonmembers do not trigger unwanted flood or RP dependence. A provider translates customer VLAN 100 to carrier VLAN 700 at ingress but forgets the inverse rewrite at egress, leaving the CE unable to recognize its frames.
Question 545
An implementation sign-off request identifies the following problem: A provider translates customer VLAN 100 to carrier VLAN 700 at ingress but forgets the inverse rewrite at egress, leaving the CE unable to recognize its frames. Which paired technical change and validation should close the implementation review? Select ONE best answer.
- Change: Match the Ethernet service type to required point-to-point, multipoint or rooted traffic relationships and enforce the appropriate endpoint split rules. Verify: Map UNI endpoints and approved source-destination pairs, then test leaf-to-leaf and root-to-leaf reachability in the staged EVC.
- 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.
- Change: Define separate VRFs with correct route distinguishers and coordinated route-target import and export policies and confirm PE-to-PE labeled reachability. Verify: Examine VRF route tables, RD, RT extended communities, MP-BGP updates and the transport plus VPN label stack.
- Change: Configure consistent service and customer VLAN tag handling with explicit encapsulation and correct cross-PE mapping. Verify: Capture ingress and egress Ethernet frames including TPID, tag stack and VLAN IDs for two isolated customers.
Explanation
Correct Answer
B:The change is successful only when: Customer devices receive frames in the specified tagging format and service VLANs remain separated despite provider translations.
Incorrect Answers
A:Change: Match the Ethernet service type to required point-to-point, multipoint or rooted traffic relationships and enforce the appropriate endpoint split rules. EVC tag operations such as push pop and translation are contextual to a service instance and may require symmetric rewrite at both attachment points.
C:Change: Define separate VRFs with correct route distinguishers and coordinated route-target import and export policies and confirm PE-to-PE labeled reachability. A provider translates customer VLAN 100 to carrier VLAN 700 at ingress but forgets the inverse rewrite at egress, leaving the CE unable to recognize its frames.
D:Change: Configure consistent service and customer VLAN tag handling with explicit encapsulation and correct cross-PE mapping.
Question 546
A service provider network engineer is reviewing this backbone or customer-service scenario: Two customers use overlapping IPv4 addresses and a provider places their routes in the same global routing table, causing misdelivery. A proposed shortcut is: Set the same global VRF for all tenants and assume changing the RD alone enforces all route import policy. What should the service provider engineer recommend as the narrowly scoped correction? Select ONE best answer.
- Set the same global VRF for all tenants and assume changing the RD alone enforces all route import policy.
- Configure a consistent Ethernet Segment Identifier and supported designated-forwarder or split-horizon behavior for the multihoming model.
- Configure consistent service and customer VLAN tag handling with explicit encapsulation and correct cross-PE mapping.
- Define separate VRFs with correct route distinguishers and coordinated route-target import and export policies and confirm PE-to-PE labeled reachability.
Explanation
Correct Answer
D:This targeted action addresses the observed service-provider control or forwarding gap without discarding necessary controls. Applied case: Two customers use overlapping IPv4 addresses and a provider places their routes in the same global routing table, causing misdelivery.
Incorrect Answers
A:A route distinguisher makes overlapping VPN routes uniquely identifiable, whereas route targets control membership and distribution of VPN routing information. For this best change assessment, the shortcut changes or bypasses the necessary routing, service or operational boundary rather than correcting it.
B:Configure a consistent Ethernet Segment Identifier and supported designated-forwarder or split-horizon behavior for the multihoming model. A route distinguisher makes overlapping VPN routes uniquely identifiable, whereas route targets control membership and distribution of VPN routing information.
C:Configure consistent service and customer VLAN tag handling with explicit encapsulation and correct cross-PE mapping. A route distinguisher makes overlapping VPN routes uniquely identifiable, whereas route targets control membership and distribution of VPN routing information.
Question 547
A Cisco service provider design review finds: Two customers use overlapping IPv4 addresses and a provider places their routes in the same global routing table, causing misdelivery. The team proposes: Define separate VRFs with correct route distinguishers and coordinated route-target import and export policies and confirm PE-to-PE labeled reachability. Which engineering principle most strongly supports the recommended response? Select ONE best answer.
- G.8032 Ethernet Ring Protection controls blocked and active ring links, while Ethernet OAM provides fault detection and service continuity evidence.
- A route distinguisher makes overlapping VPN routes uniquely identifiable, whereas route targets control membership and distribution of VPN routing information.
- IEEE 802.1ad provider bridging adds a service tag outside customer VLAN tags, and tag roles must remain consistent through the carrier network.
- 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: Each customer reaches only its own remote sites despite overlapping addresses and the expected VPN routes import correctly. Applied case: Two customers use overlapping IPv4 addresses and a provider places their routes in the same global routing table, causing misdelivery.
Incorrect Answers
A:G.8032 Ethernet Ring Protection controls blocked and active ring links, while Ethernet OAM provides fault detection and service continuity evidence. A route distinguisher makes overlapping VPN routes uniquely identifiable, whereas route targets control membership and distribution of VPN routing information.
C:IEEE 802.1ad provider bridging adds a service tag outside customer VLAN tags, and tag roles must remain consistent through the carrier network. A route distinguisher makes overlapping VPN routes uniquely identifiable, whereas route targets control membership and distribution of VPN routing information.
D:This option addresses a different service provider engineering topic (Multicast VPN mVPN inclusive and selective trees) rather than the documented MPLS L3VPN RD RT and VRF import export decision.
Question 548
The service provider operations team has not yet approved a change. Current evidence indicates: Two customers use overlapping IPv4 addresses and a provider places their routes in the same global routing table, causing misdelivery. Which evidence best tests the technical diagnosis before approving a disruptive change? Select ONE best answer.
- Compare imported RT lists, VRF next hops, shared service return routing and firewall policy using two customer tenants.
- Inspect IGMPv3 source lists or MLD reports, snooping table, receiver membership and forwarded multicast stream source identities.
- Check labeled route handoff, VRF or transport separation, next-hop reachability and a representative downstream customer LSP.
- Examine VRF route tables, RD, RT extended communities, MP-BGP updates and the transport plus VPN label stack.
Explanation
Correct Answer
D:A route distinguisher makes overlapping VPN routes uniquely identifiable, whereas route targets control membership and distribution of VPN routing information. Applied case: Two customers use overlapping IPv4 addresses and a provider places their routes in the same global routing table, causing misdelivery.
Incorrect Answers
A:Compare imported RT lists, VRF next hops, shared service return routing and firewall policy using two customer tenants. A route distinguisher makes overlapping VPN routes uniquely identifiable, whereas route targets control membership and distribution of VPN routing information.
B:Inspect IGMPv3 source lists or MLD reports, snooping table, receiver membership and forwarded multicast stream source identities. A route distinguisher makes overlapping VPN routes uniquely identifiable, whereas route targets control membership and distribution of VPN routing information.
C:Check labeled route handoff, VRF or transport separation, next-hop reachability and a representative downstream customer LSP. A route distinguisher makes overlapping VPN routes uniquely identifiable, whereas route targets control membership and distribution of VPN routing information.
Question 549
A candidate correction has been tested and the platform team requires a post-change acceptance check. Original problem: Two customers use overlapping IPv4 addresses and a provider places their routes in the same global routing table, causing misdelivery. 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.
- Each customer's original VLAN identity is preserved or intentionally translated and service isolation remains intact across the provider.
- The dual-homed customer retains connectivity with correct single-copy flooding and no persistent Layer-2 forwarding loops.
- Each customer reaches only its own remote sites despite overlapping addresses and the expected VPN routes import correctly.
- Subscribers receive only authorized group and source traffic with no unnecessary replication to idle access ports.
Explanation
Correct Answer
C:A route distinguisher makes overlapping VPN routes uniquely identifiable, whereas route targets control membership and distribution of VPN routing information. The result must be validated using the documented device, service or access context.
Incorrect Answers
A:Each customer's original VLAN identity is preserved or intentionally translated and service isolation remains intact across the provider. A route distinguisher makes overlapping VPN routes uniquely identifiable, whereas route targets control membership and distribution of VPN routing information.
B:The dual-homed customer retains connectivity with correct single-copy flooding and no persistent Layer-2 forwarding loops. A route distinguisher makes overlapping VPN routes uniquely identifiable, whereas route targets control membership and distribution of VPN routing information.
D:Subscribers receive only authorized group and source traffic with no unnecessary replication to idle access ports. A route distinguisher makes overlapping VPN routes uniquely identifiable, whereas route targets control membership and distribution of VPN routing information.
Question 550
For an original SPCOR service-provider engineering scenario, consider: Two customers use overlapping IPv4 addresses and a provider places their routes in the same global routing table, causing misdelivery. Select TWO complementary steps: the targeted correction and its strongest prechange validation.
- Check: Map UNI endpoints and approved source-destination pairs, then test leaf-to-leaf and root-to-leaf reachability in the staged EVC.
- Set the same global VRF for all tenants and assume changing the RD alone enforces all route import policy.
- Change: Define separate VRFs with correct route distinguishers and coordinated route-target import and export policies and confirm PE-to-PE labeled reachability.
- Check: Examine VRF route tables, RD, RT extended communities, MP-BGP updates and the transport plus VPN label stack.
- Change: Enable supported ring protection and Ethernet OAM mechanisms to enforce a loop-free normal state and verify service continuity after failure.
Explanation
Correct Answer
C:A route distinguisher makes overlapping VPN routes uniquely identifiable, whereas route targets control membership and distribution of VPN routing information. Acceptance: Each customer reaches only its own remote sites despite overlapping addresses and the expected VPN routes import correctly.
D:A route distinguisher makes overlapping VPN routes uniquely identifiable, whereas route targets control membership and distribution of VPN routing information. Required intervention: Define separate VRFs with correct route distinguishers and coordinated route-target import and export policies and confirm PE-to-PE labeled reachability.
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. A route distinguisher makes overlapping VPN routes uniquely identifiable, whereas route targets control membership and distribution of VPN routing information.
B:For this select two assessment, the shortcut changes or bypasses the necessary routing, service or operational boundary rather than correcting it. A route distinguisher makes overlapping VPN routes uniquely identifiable, whereas route targets control membership and distribution of VPN routing information.
E:Change: Enable supported ring protection and Ethernet OAM mechanisms to enforce a loop-free normal state and verify service continuity after failure. A route distinguisher makes overlapping VPN routes uniquely identifiable, whereas route targets control membership and distribution of VPN routing information.