Cisco 300-610 Exam With Confidence Using Practice Dumps

The collapsed-core topology is the simplest of the listed SAN architectures because it removes a separate switching tier. Hosts and storage systems connect to the same high-port-density director or core-class switches, so traffic does not traverse dedicated edge switches and additional inter-switch links before reaching the storage target. Cisco’s SAN topology guidance describes collapsed core as simple to architect and implement and straightforward to maintain and troubleshoot. Fewer switches, ISLs, and fabric hops reduce configuration dependencies, failure points, zoning-path complexity, and the number of devices that must be inspected during fault isolation. The design also uses ports efficiently because interfaces that would otherwise form an edge-to-core layer can connect end devices directly. This simplicity has a scaling boundary: as the number of hosts and storage ports grows, a core-edge design may provide better expansion and aggregation, and physically separate fabrics A and B are still required for high availability. A core-edge topology adds an edge tier and ISLs, improving large-scale expansion but increasing operational complexity. A mesh interconnect creates many switch-to-switch relationships and becomes difficult to scale and troubleshoot. Edge-core-edge introduces still more tiers and is appropriate only when scale or traffic-engineering requirements justify them. Because the question asks specifically for the topology characterized by uncomplicated architecture, implementation, maintenance, and troubleshooting—not maximum scale—the collapsed-core design is the exact match. Cisco MDS collapsed-core deployment guidance

================

Cisco ACI Policy-Based Redirect is designed for precisely this requirement: the ACI fabric remains the servers’ default gateway, while a contract service graph redirects selected traffic to an L4-L7 appliance. For routed PBR, Cisco specifies that the fabric must be the gateway for both the servers and the redirect node, and that the L4-L7 device operates in go-to, or routed, mode. The leaf applies the redirect policy to the matching Server 1-to-Server 2 flow, sends it to the load balancer attached at S3, and resumes normal fabric forwarding after the appliance processes it. This avoids changing endpoint default gateways or adding application-specific routes, and it allows the fabric to select the direct path to the service node, minimizing unnecessary hops. Option B moves the gateway outside ACI and a one-arm load balancer generally requires source NAT or PBR to preserve symmetric return traffic. Option C also moves the gateway outside the fabric, contradicting the documented ACI PBR model and sacrificing distributed anycast routing. A two-arm load balancer can be integrated with ACI, but Option D omits the redirect mechanism; simply attaching a two-arm device does not force selected traffic through it when ACI remains the gateway. The go-to PBR service graph is therefore the complete policy-based solution that provides deterministic service insertion without altering the existing routing table. Cisco ACI PBR service-graph design

================