300-420 Exam Dumps : Designing Cisco Enterprise Networks (ENSLD) v1.1

The requirement for end-to-end path verification identifies the Integrated Services model with RSVP. IntServ uses per-flow resource reservation, and RSVP signals the path between sender and receiver so devices along that path can admit or reject the requested service based on available resources. This makes IntServ appropriate when the design requires explicit end-to-end path validation and reservation for application flows. DiffServ works differently. In a DiffServ design, traffic is marked, normally with DSCP or CoS at the edge, and each hop applies a configured per-hop behavior. DiffServ is scalable and common in enterprise WAN and campus QoS designs, but it does not perform per-flow signaling or verify that every device in the path can reserve the requested resources. Marking traffic at the access layer is an important QoS design practice, but marking alone is not path verification. Therefore, when the customer explicitly requires end-to-end path verification for business-critical traffic, Cisco QoS architecture points to IntServ with RSVP rather than a pure DiffServ marking model.

NETCONF supports XML, while RESTCONF supports both XML and JSON. Cisco programmability documentation describes NETCONF as an XML-based protocol that exchanges RPC requests and replies such as get, get-config, and edit-config using XML encoding. NETCONF is tightly aligned with YANG-modeled data, but the protocol message format itself is XML. RESTCONF exposes YANG-modeled data through an HTTP or HTTPS API and can represent payloads in XML or JSON. Cisco DevNet material commonly summarizes the comparison as NETCONF equals XML, while RESTCONF equals XML or JSON. That is why option D is accurate. Option A is wrong because NETCONF does not use JSON in the same way RESTCONF does. Option B is incomplete because RESTCONF is not limited to JSON. Option C reverses the protocol encodings. This distinction matters in automation design because tool selection, content type, parsing, and API workflows differ by protocol. Reference topics: NETCONF, RESTCONF, YANG, XML encoding, JSON encoding, model-driven programmability.

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.