300-420 Exam Dumps : Designing Cisco Enterprise Networks

A scalable two-level IS-IS design uses Level 1 areas for internal campus routing and Level 2 for the interarea backbone. Each campus should have a unique IS-IS NET area value so the internal routers belong to that campus’s Level 1 area. Internal campus routers should be configured as Level 1 routers, which keeps detailed campus prefixes inside the local area and prevents unnecessary propagation of more-specific routes to other campuses. At the edge of each campus, routers that connect the campus to the backbone should operate as Level 1/Level 2 routers. These routers connect the local Level 1 area to the Level 2 backbone and can summarize or control routing information between levels. IS-IS does not use BDR routers; that is an OSPF term, so option A is invalid. Assigning the same NET value everywhere collapses the hierarchy and defeats the segregation goal. MTU differences are not a hierarchy or route-segmentation tool. Therefore, the design should use unique NET values per campus with Level 1 internal routers and Level 1/Level 2 routers at the campus edge.

A /22 subnet is the smallest IPv4 block in the answer set that closely fits a branch expected not to exceed roughly one thousand users while avoiding unnecessary address waste. A /22 contains 1024 total addresses and 1022 usable host addresses after the network and broadcast addresses are reserved. That aligns with the requirement to provide the maximum number of host addresses without selecting a larger block than necessary. A /21 provides 2048 total addresses and 2046 usable hosts, which is materially larger than the stated requirement and wastes address space. The specific 192.168.8.0/22 block also aligns on a valid /22 boundary because /22 networks increment by four in the third octet. A 192.168.16.0/22 is also mathematically valid, but the exhibit determines the available address range; the selected option uses the appropriate block from the displayed plan. Reference topics: IPv4 subnet sizing, CIDR, usable host calculation, branch address planning, VLSM.

Explicit QoS trust should be configured at the network boundary points where markings first enter the managed DiffServ domain and are known to be reliable. In a DiffServ design, traffic classification and marking are typically performed at the access edge or at a controlled ingress boundary, and downstream devices then honor DSCP or CoS markings based on the trust boundary. Cisco QoS design stresses that the trust boundary must be intentionally placed; endpoints or unmanaged devices should not be trusted by default because they can mark traffic incorrectly and steal priority treatment. The exhibit answer identifies B and E as the correct trust points, meaning those are the controlled ingress locations where markings should be accepted. Options that trust uncontrolled endpoint-facing points or internal transit locations would either create a security problem or add no practical value. Once traffic is trusted and marked at the correct boundary, queuing, policing, and shaping policies can use the DSCP values consistently across the campus or WAN. Reference topics: DiffServ, QoS trust boundary, DSCP marking, classification, enterprise QoS design.