300-420 Exam Dumps : Designing Cisco Enterprise Networks

The most efficient campus design aligns the active first-hop gateway with the Layer 2 forwarding path. In a traditional access-distribution topology using STP and HSRP, traffic should not cross the distribution-to-distribution link simply because the HSRP active gateway is on the opposite distribution switch from the STP forwarding path. Cisco campus design guidance stresses aligning the STP root bridge with the active FHRP gateway so hosts forward northbound traffic directly to the distribution switch that owns the optimal Layer 2 path. Reconfiguring distribution switch A to become the HSRP active device fixes the asymmetric and inefficient traffic flow in the exhibit. Adding a link between access switches would extend the Layer 2 domain and increase loop-prevention complexity, not improve the northbound default-gateway path. Changing the distribution interconnect to a routed link may be valid in a routed-access redesign, but it is not the targeted correction for this Layer 2/FHRP misalignment. An EtherChannel between distribution switches only increases interswitch capacity; it does not remove the unnecessary hairpin path caused by the wrong active gateway.

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.

This YANG mapping is based on how IETF, OpenConfig, and Cisco native models differ in portability and schema organization. IETF models are produced through the standards process and are appropriate when the same management structure is expected across vendors for common protocols. OpenConfig models are also vendor-neutral, but they are built around a consistent operational model used heavily for streaming telemetry and multivendor automation. Cisco native models mirror Cisco platform configuration more closely and expose device-specific capabilities that may not exist in common models. The selected answers keep those boundaries clear. This matters because a NETCONF or RESTCONF payload is validated against the YANG schema; a payload written for one model family cannot be assumed to work against another. In design terms, the model family should be selected after confirming device software release support, feature coverage, operational-state requirements, and vendor diversity. Open models give portability; native models give feature completeness. Reference topics: IETF YANG, OpenConfig YANG, Cisco native YANG, schema validation, automation model selection.