Cisco Exam 300-620 Topic 3 Question 83 Discussion

Actual exam question for Cisco's 300-620 exam

Question #: 83
Topic #: 3

Refer to the exhibit.

Refer to the exhibit. A Cisco ACI environment hosts two e-commerce applications. The default contract from a common tenant between different application tiers is used, and the applications work as expected. The customer wants to move to more specific contracts to prevent unwanted traffic between EPGs. A network administrator creates the app-to-db contract to meet this objective for the application and database tiers. The application EPGs must communicate only with their respective database EPGs. How should this contract be configured to meet this requirement?

ASet the app-to-db scope to Global.

BSet the app-to-db scope to Application Profile.

CImplement the app-to-db scope as VRF.

DImplement the app-to-db as a Taboo contract.

Show Suggested Answer

Suggested Answer: C

in order to provide connectivity from EPGs from a specific site to networks reachable through a remote site L3OUT, a new stretched external EPG must be added to the existing L3OUT.

by Berry at Sep 13, 2024, 02:16 AM

Limited Time Offer

25%

Off

Get Premium 300-620 Questions as Interactive Web-Based Practice Test or PDF

Contribute your Thoughts:

Submit Cancel

Carman

2 months ago

Option C is a bit overkill for this scenario. Using a VRF would be like building a whole new highway system just to keep the cars in their lanes.

upvoted 0 times

Nan

1 months ago

Exactly, using a Taboo contract would be the most appropriate choice here.

upvoted 0 times

...

Laurel

1 months ago

Setting the scope to Global might make it too broad, we need something more specific.

upvoted 0 times

...

Melodie

2 months ago

I think setting the scope to Application Profile would be a better option.

upvoted 0 times

...

Lavina

2 months ago

Agreed, using a VRF seems like too much for this situation.

upvoted 0 times

...

Felice

2 months ago

Haha, I'd love to see the network admin try to implement the app-to-db contract as a Taboo contract. That would be like putting a 'Do Not Enter' sign on a two-way street!

upvoted 0 times

...

Kristel

2 months ago

I agree, B is the way to go. Scoping the contract to the Application Profile makes the most sense for this use case.

upvoted 0 times

Shawnta

1 months ago

User 2: I agree, scoping the contract to the Application Profile is the way to go.

upvoted 0 times

...

Britt

1 months ago

User 1: I think B is the best option here.

upvoted 0 times

...

Alonzo

2 months ago

I'm not sure, but I think setting the scope to VRF could also work to meet the requirement.

upvoted 0 times

...

Aron

2 months ago

I agree with Rebecka. Setting the scope to Application Profile will ensure that the application EPGs only communicate with their respective database EPGs.

upvoted 0 times

...

Arthur

2 months ago

The correct answer is B. Setting the app-to-db contract scope to the Application Profile will restrict communication between the application and database EPGs within that profile, preventing unwanted traffic between tiers.

upvoted 0 times