CCNP Enterprise 300-420 Exam Questions and Answers PDF

The correct XML/YANG data model set is the option that accurately represents the IOS XE interface hierarchy, assigns the IPv4 address to GigabitEthernet2/1/0, and uses the correct prefix length of 27. In model-driven programmability, the payload must match both the selected YANG model schema and the target platform’s interface naming conventions. For IOS XE native models, interface configuration is structured under the Cisco native namespace, with interface type and name represented in the schema before IPv4 address elements are applied. The address 10.10.10.10/27 must also support a directly connected host at 10.10.10.1/27, which places both addresses in the same 10.10.10.0/27 subnet. Options that place the address under the wrong interface type, use the wrong namespace, incorrectly represent the mask, or configure the host route rather than the interface are invalid. Option D is the only answer aligned to the IOS XE YANG structure and the requested addressing. Reference topics: IOS XE native YANG, NETCONF XML payloads, interface configuration, IPv4 prefix length, model-driven programmability.

The selected configuration sets are correct because the addressing plan must use VLSM to maximize subnets and minimize wasted addresses. Customer A requires 125 hosts, so it needs a /25 subnet, which provides 126 usable host addresses. Customer D requires 62 hosts, so it needs a /26 subnet, which provides 62 usable addresses exactly. Point-to-point or small WAN links B, C, and E should use the smallest appropriate link subnets shown in the exhibit, typically /30 for IPv4 point-to-point links when two usable addresses are required. A correct plan must allocate the largest blocks first, align every subnet on the proper boundary, avoid overlap, and avoid assigning a larger-than-needed subnet to any customer or link. Options A and C are the two valid combinations that satisfy those rules in the exhibit. Any option that places a /25 or /26 on the wrong boundary, overlaps with another block, or wastes larger subnets on links would fail the design objective. Reference topics: IPv4 VLSM, subnet boundary alignment, host capacity planning, point-to-point addressing, route summarization readiness.

The company must configure a summary route on R1. The branch routers must remain normal EIGRP routers, and auto-summary is not allowed, so the scalable design choice is manual summarization at the hub. Cisco EIGRP documentation states that manual summarization can be configured on an interface using the ip summary-address eigrp command and can summarize routes on almost any bit boundary. In a DMVPN hub-and-spoke topology, a hub summary reduces the number of individual routes advertised to branches, limits routing-table growth, and helps contain EIGRP queries. It also keeps branch configuration simple because the branches do not need to be converted to stub routers to meet this specific requirement. Disabling split horizon is a common DMVPN Phase 2 consideration when the hub must advertise spoke routes back out the same multipoint tunnel interface, but it does not summarize HQ routes. A multipoint interface is already implied by DMVPN, and disabling the SIA timer is not a design solution. Reference topics: EIGRP manual summarization, DMVPN hub design, no auto-summary, query containment.

Bidirectional PIM is the correct multicast protocol for this many-to-many financial application. The question states that most multicast sources also receive multicast traffic and that the design must not use source trees. Cisco describes BIDIR-PIM as a multicast mode built for many-to-many applications that use a shared tree rooted at the rendezvous point and avoid per-source shortest-path trees. This reduces multicast state because routers do not maintain separate source/group state for every active sender. PIM Sparse Mode can start with a shared tree, but it can switch to source trees, which violates the stated requirement. PIM-SSM is explicitly source-specific and requires receiver knowledge of the source, so it is not appropriate for a many-to-many model where source trees are disallowed. MSDP is not a multicast forwarding mode; it is used for source discovery between PIM-SM domains. The option text contains a spelling error, but the intended answer is BIDIR-PIM. The architect should verify RP placement, Designated Forwarder behavior, group ranges, and whether the application can tolerate shared-tree forwarding rather than shortest-path source trees. Reference topics: BIDIR-PIM, many-to-many multicast, shared tree, source-tree avoidance, multicast scaling.