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

EIGRP and BGP are the two listed routing protocols that can support unequal-cost load balancing in Cisco enterprise designs. EIGRP performs unequal-cost load sharing by using the variance command. Feasible successor routes whose feasible distance falls within the variance multiplier can be installed alongside the successor route, provided they satisfy EIGRP loop-prevention rules. This allows traffic to use links with different composite metrics while still maintaining loop-free forwarding. BGP can also support unequal-cost distribution in specific designs, such as using BGP multipath features with additional bandwidth-based mechanisms or policy to influence traffic sharing across nonidentical paths. OSPF and IS-IS commonly support equal-cost multipath, but they do not natively perform EIGRP-style unequal-cost load balancing based on different path metrics. RIPng is also limited by hop-count behavior and is not used for unequal-cost multipath in this context. The correct design answer is therefore EIGRP and BGP. In production, the engineer must still validate hardware forwarding behavior, policy consistency, and whether the traffic-sharing method is per-flow or per-prefix.

An out-of-band management network best satisfies the requirement to grant and revoke administrative access, restrict management protocols, and limit exposure of management interfaces. Out-of-band management separates administrative traffic from the production data plane by using dedicated management interfaces, management switches, terminal infrastructure, or separate routing. This isolation improves security because a compromise or congestion event in the production network does not automatically provide access to device management planes. It also allows stronger access controls, protocol restrictions, logging, and administrative segmentation for SSH, NTP, FTP, and SNMP. In-band management uses the production network and is more exposed to outages or data-plane attacks. An enterprise internal private network is too vague and does not guarantee management-plane isolation. mGRE is a tunneling technique, not a complete management access architecture. A professional design should also include AAA, role-based authorization, ACLs, management VRFs where appropriate, logging, and monitoring. Reference topics: out-of-band management, management-plane security, AAA, access control, protocol restriction, network operations design.

Dual stack is the correct IPv4 and IPv6 deployment strategy when the customer wants a straightforward design with no information hiding and no tunnel forwarding overhead. In a dual-stack deployment, routers, switches, servers, and clients run IPv4 and IPv6 simultaneously. Applications can select IPv4 or IPv6, typically based on DNS response and protocol availability, while the network forwards each protocol natively. This avoids the translation behavior of NAT64, where address information is hidden or converted between protocols. It also avoids GRE or other tunneling mechanisms, which add encapsulation overhead and operational complexity. LISP can provide location/identity separation and mobility, but it is not the simplest migration approach for native IPv4 and IPv6 coexistence. Dual stack is often the cleanest transition model when the infrastructure supports both protocols, because it permits gradual application migration without forcing all services through translators or tunnels. Reference topics: IPv6 migration, dual-stack deployment, NAT64, tunneling overhead, native IPv4 and IPv6 forwarding.

The drag-and-drop answer follows the practical distinction between the YANG model families. IETF models are standards-based models intended to provide a common structure for widely implemented protocol and interface functions. OpenConfig models are vendor-neutral operational and configuration models developed for cross-vendor automation, with a strong focus on consistent telemetry and network state representation. Cisco native models expose Cisco platform-specific capabilities and usually provide the deepest coverage for IOS XE, IOS XR, or NX-OS features that are not fully represented in a common model. The selected mapping therefore assigns model elements according to origin, portability, and feature depth. In a production automation design, engineers should start with open models when interoperability and long-term portability matter, but they should choose Cisco native models when a required Cisco feature is not available or is incomplete in IETF or OpenConfig. The choice is not cosmetic; it affects payload structure, namespace, validation behavior, and operational consistency across device families. Reference topics: YANG model families, IETF YANG, OpenConfig, Cisco native YANG, model-driven configuration.

A totally stubby OSPF area is the best choice for a small remote site with low-end routers and no requirement to carry transit traffic. A standard stub area blocks Type 5 external LSAs, but it still receives interarea Type 3 summary LSAs. A totally stubby area goes further by blocking external routes and most interarea summary routes, while allowing a default route to be injected by the ABR. That greatly reduces LSDB size, SPF processing, memory use, and routing-table entries on the low-end routers. The remote site still has full connectivity to the rest of the OSPF domain through the default route. NSSA and totally NSSA designs are useful when the area must inject external routes from an ASBR inside the area, but the question does not state that the remote site needs redistribution. A regular stub area is acceptable but does not minimize resources as much as a totally stubby area. Because there is no demand for traffic to pass through this area, the most efficient Cisco design is totally stubby. Reference topics: OSPF stub areas, totally stubby area, default routing, LSDB reduction, branch OSPF design.

Bidirectional PIM is the best fit for this multicast design because the application is many-to-many and has a manageable but meaningful number of multicast sources. Cisco describes BIDIR-PIM as a multicast mode designed for many-to-many applications where sources and receivers can be widely distributed. Unlike classic PIM sparse mode, BIDIR-PIM does not build source-specific shortest-path trees for each active source. Instead, traffic uses a shared bidirectional tree rooted at the rendezvous point, which reduces multicast state in the network and improves scale when many sources may send to the same group. Source-Specific Multicast is optimized for one-to-many distribution where receivers know the source and join an (S,G) channel; it is not the natural many-to-many choice. Any Source Multicast can support many-to-many traffic but usually creates more state because source trees may be built. Multicast VPN is a transport/service architecture, not the specific multicast mode requested. Reference topics: BIDIR-PIM, many-to-many multicast, shared trees, RP-based forwarding, multicast state scaling.

MSDP is the correct solution because the question explicitly references RFC 3618, which defines the Multicast Source Discovery Protocol. The design has separate PIM Sparse Mode multicast domains, with RP functions already configured on edge routers in each autonomous system. Cisco explains that MSDP allows rendezvous points in different PIM-SM domains to discover active multicast sources outside their local domain. When a source becomes active, the local RP can advertise source-active information to MSDP peers, allowing receivers in another domain to learn and join the stream. PIM-SSM is not correct because SSM removes the RP dependency and requires receivers to know the source directly. MP-BGP can carry multicast routing information, but it does not perform RP-to-RP source discovery. BIDIR-PIM is a multicast mode for many-to-many shared-tree forwarding, not an interdomain RP discovery mechanism under RFC 3618. Reference topics: MSDP, RFC 3618, PIM Sparse Mode, interdomain multicast, Source-Active messages, rendezvous points.

BGP Multipath Load Sharing is the feature used when a single router has two parallel BGP paths to the same ISP and the design goal is to install more than one eligible BGP path in the routing table. By default, BGP selects a single best path after evaluating path attributes such as weight, local preference, AS path, origin, MED, eBGP over iBGP, IGP metric to next hop, and tie breakers. When the competing paths are sufficiently equivalent and BGP multipath is enabled, Cisco IOS can install multiple BGP next hops for the same prefix and allow the forwarding plane to load share across both links. Multihop is used to establish BGP sessions to non-directly connected neighbors, not to load balance. Next-Hop Address Tracking improves convergence by tracking next-hop reachability, but it does not itself create load sharing. AS-path prepending intentionally makes a path less preferred for inbound traffic engineering. Therefore, the correct BGP feature for balancing outbound traffic across two links to the same ISP is Multipath Load Sharing.