Cisco 300-420 Online Access

The design must influence how EIGRP-learned routes are injected into the OSPF domain, so R2 should redistribute EIGRP into OSPF as metric-type E1 and R3 as metric-type E2. Cisco OSPF documentation distinguishes external Type 1 and Type 2 routes. An E1 route includes the external cost plus the internal OSPF cost to reach the ASBR, while an E2 route uses only the external metric. Cisco path selection prefers O E1 over O E2 for the same external destination. Therefore, making R2 advertise the EIGRP routes as E1 causes OSPF routers to prefer R2 as the exit toward the EIGRP domain. Option C adjusts OSPF-to-EIGRP redistribution, which is the wrong direction for traffic passing toward EIGRP from OSPF. Removing redistribution on R3 would reduce redundancy. Option D reverses the preference and would favor R3. Reference topics: OSPF external route types, EIGRP-to-OSPF redistribution, ASBR preference, E1 versus E2 metrics.

DMVPN Phase 3 hub-and-spoke is the best design for this requirement. The customer wants secure dynamic site-to-site VPN connectivity for voice, video, and FTP, and also wants branches to communicate directly instead of hairpinning all traffic through headquarters. DMVPN supports dynamic spoke-to-spoke tunnels using multipoint GRE, NHRP, and IPsec protection. Phase 3 is more scalable than Phase 2 because the hub can send NHRP redirect messages and spokes can install shortcut routes, reducing the need for every spoke to maintain detailed next-hop information for every other spoke. That is important because the branch routers have limited memory. Phase 1 is hub-and-spoke only and does not provide dynamic spoke-to-spoke forwarding. A hierarchical Phase 3 design can be useful at very large scale, but the question describes a headquarters and remote branch design rather than multiple tiers of hubs. Phase 3 hub-and-spoke satisfies direct branch communication, security, and scale. Reference topics: DMVPN Phase 3, NHRP redirect, spoke-to-spoke tunnels, IPsec encryption, branch WAN scalability.

DiffServ is the correct scalable QoS architecture for classifying traffic according to business requirements and using DSCP values as the priority descriptor. Cisco QoS design distinguishes DiffServ from IntServ. IntServ uses per-flow signaling with RSVP and can reserve resources, but that model is not operationally scalable across large enterprise networks. DiffServ is class-based. Traffic is classified and marked at the network edge, then each device applies per-hop behavior to those classes using local QoS policy. DSCP provides a six-bit field in the IP header, which supports more than ten classification values and allows standardized treatment classes such as EF, AF, class selector, and default. Best effort provides no differentiated treatment, and RSVP is a signaling mechanism associated with IntServ rather than the requested scalable class-based architecture. “Interserv” is not the correct Cisco QoS model term. Therefore, the engineer should design around DiffServ, with a clear trust boundary, marking policy, queuing model, and consistent treatment across WAN and campus boundaries. Reference topics: DiffServ, DSCP, per-hop behavior, class-based QoS, scalable QoS architecture.

For streaming multimedia over a WAN using DiffServ per-hop behavior, the best answer is CBWFQ with DSCP AF3. Cisco QoS design separates real-time interactive voice from streaming multimedia. Voice bearer traffic commonly uses EF and a strict priority queue because it is extremely sensitive to delay and jitter. Streaming multimedia, however, is usually buffered and bandwidth-intensive; it should receive assured bandwidth and controlled drop behavior rather than strict priority treatment. The Assured Forwarding classes are designed for this kind of preferential forwarding within DiffServ. AF3 is commonly associated with multimedia streaming in Cisco QoS baseline models, while CBWFQ provides bandwidth guarantees without allowing the class to starve other traffic. LLQ with EF is too aggressive for streaming multimedia and should be reserved for voice bearer traffic or similarly strict real-time flows. AF2 is more commonly used for transactional data or lower-priority assured service, depending on the model. The correct marking and queuing design is therefore CBWFQ with DSCP AF3. Reference topics: DiffServ, per-hop behavior, CBWFQ, DSCP AF classes, multimedia streaming QoS.