300-420 Exam Dumps : Designing Cisco Enterprise Networks

Route leaking on R13 and R9 is required so the Level 1 area can make a better exit decision toward the server. In an IS-IS hierarchy, Level 1 routers know detailed topology only inside their own area. For destinations outside the area, they normally follow the closest attached Level 1/Level 2 router, which can produce suboptimal latency when another exit has a better end-to-end path. Route leaking selectively injects more specific Level 2 reachability information into Level 1, allowing routers in the New Office area to evaluate a better path instead of blindly following the nearest attached-bit exit. Changing metric style on R8 alone does not import the external-area route information needed for better path selection. A static route could force a path but would not be a scalable dynamic IS-IS design. Making R8 Level 1/Level 2 does not solve the need to expose the relevant route through the correct area boundary. Reference topics: IS-IS Level 1 and Level 2, attached bit, route leaking, interarea optimization, latency-aware routing.

The requirement for end-to-end path verification identifies the Integrated Services model with RSVP. IntServ uses per-flow resource reservation, and RSVP signals the path between sender and receiver so devices along that path can admit or reject the requested service based on available resources. This makes IntServ appropriate when the design requires explicit end-to-end path validation and reservation for application flows. DiffServ works differently. In a DiffServ design, traffic is marked, normally with DSCP or CoS at the edge, and each hop applies a configured per-hop behavior. DiffServ is scalable and common in enterprise WAN and campus QoS designs, but it does not perform per-flow signaling or verify that every device in the path can reserve the requested resources. Marking traffic at the access layer is an important QoS design practice, but marking alone is not path verification. Therefore, when the customer explicitly requires end-to-end path verification for business-critical traffic, Cisco QoS architecture points to IntServ with RSVP rather than a pure DiffServ marking model.

Route summarization should be planned from the aggregation layer toward both the core and the access layer. In hierarchical campus routing, aggregation or distribution devices are natural summarization boundaries because they sit between more specific access-layer networks and the core. Summarizing from aggregation toward the core prevents access-layer subnet churn from forcing unnecessary recomputation and route table growth in the core. Summarizing from aggregation toward access can also provide a concise upstream route, often a default or summary route, so access devices do not need the entire network routing table. The goal is to contain failures, reduce routing state, and preserve fast convergence at hierarchy boundaries. Summarizing from the core toward aggregation may hide useful topology details in the wrong direction, while summarizing directly from access toward aggregation is not always possible or efficient when access devices are numerous and have limited resources. The answer that places summarization at aggregation in both directions best matches Cisco hierarchical design principles. Reference topics: hierarchical campus design, route summarization, aggregation layer, core route scale, convergence containment.