Free Cisco 300-410 Exam Dumps and 300-410 Exam Questions

Question No: 1

MultipleChoice

Refer to the exhibit.

BGP is flapping after the Copp policy is applied. What are the two solutions to fix the issue?

(Choose two)

Options

AConfigure BGP in the COPP-CRITICAL-7600 ACL

BConfigure a higher value for CIR under the default class to allow more packets during peak traffic

CConfigure a higher value for CIR under the class COPP-CRITICAL-7600

DConfigure a three-color policer instead of two-color policer under class COPP-CRITICAL-
7600

EConfigure IP CEF to CoPP policy and BGP to work

Question No: 2

MultipleChoice

A DMVPN network is preconfigured with tunnel 0 IP address 192.168.1.254 on the HUB, IP connectivity, crypto policies, profiles, and EIGRP AS 100. The NHRP password is ccnp123, and the network ID and tunnel key is EIGRP ASN Do not introduce a static route. Configure DMVPN connectivity between routers BR1 and BR2 to the HUB router using physical interface as the tunnel source to achieve these goals:

Options

ASee the answer solution in Explanation

Question No: 3

MultipleChoice

Refer to the exhibit.

The network administrator has configured the Customer Edge router (AS 64511) to send only summarized routes toward ISP-1 (AS 100) and ISP-2 (AS 200).

router bgp 64511

network 172.16.20.0 mask 255.255.255.0

network 172.16.21.0 mask 255.255.255.0

network 172.16.22.0 mask 255.255.255.0

network 172.16.23.0 mask 255.255.255.0

aggregate-address 172.16.20.0 255.255.252.0

After this configuration. ISP-1 and ISP-2 continue to receive the specific routes and the summary route. Which configuration resolves the issue?

Options

Arouter bgp 64511
aggregate-address 172.16.20.0 255.255.252.0 summary-only

Brouter bgp 64511
neighbor 192.168.100.1 summary-only
neighbor 192.168.200.2 summary-only

Cinterface E 0/0
ip bgp suppress-map BLOCK_SPECIFIC
!
interface E 0/1
ip bgp suppress-map BLOCK_SPECIFIC
!
ip prefix-list PL_BLOCK_SPECIFIC permit 172.16.20.0/22 ge 24
!
route-map BLOCK_SPECIFIC permit 10
match ip address prefix-list PL_BLOCK_SPECIFIC

Dip prefix-list PL_BLOCK_SPECIFIC deny 172.16.20.0/22 ge 22
ip prefix-list PL BLOCK SPECIFIC permit 172.16.20.0/22
!
route-map BLOCK_SPECIFIC permit 10
match ip address prefix-list PL_BLOCK_SPECIFIC
!
router bgp 64511
aggregate-address 172.16.20.0 255 255.252.0 suppress-map BLOCKSPECIFIC

Question No: 4

MultipleChoice

Refer to the exhibit.

The remote server is failing to receive the NetFlow data Which action resolves the issue?

Options

AModify the flow transport command transport udp 2055 to move under flow monitor profile.

BModify the interlace command to Ip flow monitor FLOW-MONITOR-1 Input.

CModify the udp port under flow exporter profile to Ip transport udp 4739.

DModify the flow record command record v4_r1 to move under flow exporter profile.

Question No: 5

MultipleChoice

Refer to the exhibit.

The administrator configured route advertisement to a remote low resources router to use only the default route to reach any network but failed. Which action resolves this issue?

Options

AChange the direction of the distribute-list command from out to in.

BRemove the line with the sequence number 5 from the prefix list.

CRemove the prefix keyword from the distribute-list command.

DRemove the line with the sequence number 10 from the prefix list.

Question No: 6

MultipleChoice

Refer to the exhibit.

Refer to the exhibit. An engineer notices a connectivity problem between routers R1 and R2. The frequency of this problem is high during peak business hours. Which action resolves the issue?

Options

AIncrease the MTU on the interfaces that connect R1 and R2.

BIncrease the available bandwidth between R1 and R2.

CDecrease the EIGRP keepallve and hold down timers on R1 and R2.

DSet static EIGRP neighborship between R1 and R2.

Question No: 7

MultipleChoice

Refer to the exhibit A CoPP policy is implemented to allow specific control traffic, but the traffic is not matching as expected and is getting unexpected behavior of control traffic. Which action resolves the issue?

Options

AUse match-any instruction in class-map

BCreate a separate class map against each ACL.

CCreate a separate class map lor ICMP traffic.

DUse default-class to match ICMP traffic

Question No: 8

MultipleChoice

Exhibits:

Refer to the exhibit The administrator configured the network devices for end-to-end reachability, but the ASBRs are not propagating routes to each other Which set of configurations resolves this issue?

Options

AOption A

BOption B

COption C

DOption D

Question No: 9

MultipleChoice

Exhibit.

Refer to the exhibit. A network is configured for EIGRP equal-cost load balancing, but the traffic destined to the servers is not load balanced. Link metrics from router R2 to R3 and R4 are the same. Which delay value must be configured to resolve the issue?

Options

A208 oon R3 E0/0

B120 on R4 E0/1

C120/on R3 E0/1

D2200 on R4 E0/1

Question No: 10

MultipleChoice

Configure individual VRFs for each customer according to the topology to achieve these goals :

R1

R2

SW1

SW2

SW3

Options

AExplanation:
Solution:
Use cu-red under interfaces facing SW1 & SW3:
On R1:
interface Ethernet0/0
ip vrf forwarding cu-red
ip address 192.168.1.254 255.255.255.0
Check reachability to SW1:
R1#ping vrf cu-red 192.168.1.1
Type escape sequence to abort.
Sending 5, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 192.168.2.1, timeout is 2 seconds:
!!!!!
Success rate is 100 percent (5/5), round-trip min/avg/max = 1/1/1 ms
On R2:
interface Ethernet0/0
ip vrf forwarding cu-red
ip address 192.168.2.254 255.255.255.0
Check reachability to SW3:
R2#ping vrf cu-red 192.168.2.1
Type escape sequence to abort.
Sending 5, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 192.168.1.1, timeout is 2 seconds:
!!!!!
Use vrf cu-green for SW2 & SW4:
On R1:
interface Ethernet0/1
ip vrf forwarding cu-green
ip address 192.168.20.254 255.255.255.0
Test reachability to SW2:
R1#ping vrf cu-green 192.168.20.1
Type escape sequence to abort.
Sending 5, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 192.168.22.1, timeout is 2 seconds:
!!!!!
Success rate is 100 percent (5/5), round-trip min/avg/max = 1/1/1 ms
On R2:
interface Ethernet0/1
ip vrf forwarding cu-green
ip address 192.168.22.254 255.255.255.0
Test reachability to SW4:
R2#ping vrf cu-green 192.168.22.1
Type escape sequence to abort.
Sending 5, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 192.168.20.1, timeout is 2 seconds:
!!!!!
Success rate is 100 percent (5/5), round-trip min/avg/max = 1/1/1 ms
On R1:
interface Ethernet0/2.100
mpls ip
!
interface Ethernet0/2.200
mpls ip
!
Configure BGP:
router bgp 65000
neighbor 10.10.10.2 remote-as 65000
neighbor 10.10.20.2 remote-as 65000
!
address-family vpnv4
neighbor 10.10.10.2 activate
neighbor 10.10.20.2 activate
exit-address-family
!
address-family ipv4 vrf cu-green
redistribute connected
exit-address-family
!
address-family ipv4 vrf cu-red
redistribute connected
exit-address-family
!
R1(config)#ip vrf cu-red
R1(config-vrf)#route-target both 65000:100
!
R1(config)#ip vrf cu-green
R1(config-vrf)#route-target both 65000:200
On R2:
interface Ethernet0/2.100
mpls ip
!
interface Ethernet0/2.200
mpls ip
!
router bgp 65000
neighbor 10.10.10.1 remote-as 65000
neighbor 10.10.20.1 remote-as 65000
!
address-family vpnv4
neighbor 10.10.10.1 activate
neighbor 10.10.20.1 activate
exit-address-family
!
address-family ipv4 vrf cu-green
redistribute connected
exit-address-family
!
address-family ipv4 vrf cu-red
redistribute connected
exit-address-family
R2(config)#ip vrf cu-red
R2(config-vrf)#route-target both 65000:100
!
R2(config)#ip vrf cu-green
R2(config-vrf)#route-target both 65000:200
Verification:
From SW1 to SW3:
SW1#ping 192.168.1.1
Type escape sequence to abort.
Sending 5, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 192.168.1.1, timeout is 2 seconds:
!!!!!
Success rate is 100 percent (5/5), round-trip min/avg/max = 1/1/1 ms
But can't Reach SW2 or SW4 in VRF cu-green:
SW1#ping 192.168.22.1
Type escape sequence to abort.
Sending 5, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 192.168.22.1, timeout is 2 seconds:

UU.U
Success rate is 0 percent (0/5)
SW1#ping 192.168.20.1
Type escape sequence to abort.
Sending 5, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 192.168.20.1, timeout is 2 seconds:

UU.U
Success rate is 0 percent (0/5)
Same Test for SW2:
From SW2 to SW4:
SW2#ping 192.168.20.1
Type escape sequence to abort.
Sending 5, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 192.168.20.1, timeout is 2 seconds:
!!!!!
Success rate is 100 percent (5/5), round-trip min/avg/max = 1/1/1 ms
But can't Reach SW3 or SW1 in VRF cu-red:
SW2#ping 192.168.1.1
Type escape sequence to abort.
Sending 5, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 192.168.1.1, timeout is 2 seconds:

UU.U
Success rate is 0 percent (0/5)
SW2#ping 192.168.2.1
Type escape sequence to abort.
Sending 5, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 192.168.2.1, timeout is 2 seconds:

UU.U
Success rate is 0 percent (0/5)
Both R1 & R2 has separate tables for VRFs cu-red and cu-green.