Free 300-420 Questions Attempt

The selected command is correct because the port is already restricted to one manually learned MAC address, and the requirement is to let the switch dynamically learn the connected endpoint while retaining port-security control. In Cisco Catalyst port security, a static secure MAC address is manually configured, while a sticky secure MAC address is dynamically learned and then added to the running configuration. This design is useful on access ports where the administrator wants the operational convenience of dynamic learning but still wants the switch to enforce the maximum secure-address limit. Once the endpoint MAC is learned, subsequent frames from different source MAC addresses can trigger the configured violation action, such as protect, restrict, or shutdown. The command must therefore enable sticky learning on the secured interface rather than simply changing the maximum, disabling port security, or configuring a normal switching feature. This is an access-layer security function, not a routing or QoS function. Reference topics: Catalyst port security, secure MAC addresses, sticky learning, access port hardening, Layer 2 campus design.

Traffic shaping is required in the parent policy when hierarchical QoS uses CBWFQ in the child policy for low-bandwidth remote sites. In Cisco hierarchical QoS, the parent policy commonly shapes outbound traffic to the real available rate of the WAN service, especially when the physical interface speed is higher than the provider committed rate. The child policy then applies class-based queuing, such as CBWFQ and LLQ, inside the shaped rate. This structure creates an artificial congestion point on the router so the child queues can schedule packets predictably instead of allowing the provider to drop traffic after it exceeds the service rate. Policing in the child policy would drop excess packets and is not the normal prerequisite for nested CBWFQ. CBWFQ is supported in child policies within hierarchical designs, and parent shaping is the mechanism that makes the hierarchy effective. This is especially important on low-bandwidth WAN links where voice, video, and business-critical applications require deterministic treatment. Reference topics: hierarchical QoS, CBWFQ, parent shaping, child queuing, WAN QoS design.

The correct IS-IS design combines tuned SPF/PRC behavior with a proper Level 1 and Level 2 hierarchy. Reducing SPF and PRC intervals, within platform and stability limits, helps routers react more quickly to topology changes after a link failure. However, fast timers alone are not enough; the hierarchy must contain instability so physical link flaps in the access layer have limited impact on the rest of the network. Access routers should form Level 1 adjacencies inside their local area, while aggregation routers should operate as Level 1/Level 2 routers to connect the access area to the Level 2 backbone. This design gives access routers a simple local view and uses aggregation as the interarea boundary. Running all access and aggregation routers as L1/L2 across the network increases the size of the backbone and exposes more routers to wider flooding, which is the opposite of the requirement. Redistributing Internet routes into Level 1 is also poor design because it bloats the access area. Therefore, the right choices are C and E. Reference topics: IS-IS hierarchy, L1/L2 design, SPF and PRC tuning, access-layer convergence, fault containment.

The IPv4-compatible method is the closest match when the exhibit requires IPv6 connectivity between servers across an IPv4 portion of the network without using 6to4, 6rd, or ISATAP. IPv4-compatible IPv6 addressing represents an IPv4 address inside an IPv6 address format and was historically used for automatic IPv6-over-IPv4 tunneling between dual-stack nodes. Although this technique is now considered legacy and is not preferred for new designs, it matches the answer choice that directly embeds IPv4 reachability for host-to-host connectivity. ISATAP is normally used inside an enterprise IPv4 network to connect IPv6 hosts over an IPv4 intranet. 6to4 and 6rd are provider or site transition mechanisms that use specific IPv6 prefix behavior and are not simply a direct method between the depicted mail servers. For modern Cisco design, dual-stack or manually engineered tunnels would normally be preferred, but given these choices, IPv4-compatible addressing is the method aligned to the exhibit requirement. Reference topics: IPv6 transition mechanisms, IPv4-compatible addressing, tunneling, dual-stack migration, host connectivity.