Cisco Updated 300-420 Exam Questions and Answers by arisha

A full-mesh topology best satisfies the requirement that devices make informed forwarding decisions, backup paths always exist, and suboptimal paths are used only after a failure. In a full mesh, each site or WAN node has direct connectivity to every other relevant node. This gives the routing protocol complete path visibility and allows traffic to use direct optimal paths under normal conditions. If a direct link fails, alternate paths remain available through other nodes, so the network can reroute without depending on a single hub. A hub-and-spoke design is simpler and less expensive, but spoke-to-spoke traffic must traverse the hub, which is suboptimal even during normal operation. A partial mesh can reduce cost but may still force some traffic over indirect paths when no direct connection exists. Clos is a data center fabric topology concept and is not the typical WAN topology answer here. The full mesh is the most resource-intensive design, but it best matches the stated forwarding and backup requirements. Reference topics: WAN topology, full mesh, path optimality, backup paths, routing convergence.

Wireless endpoints in Cisco SD-Access are registered through the fabric wireless integration process, and the fabric WLC is the component that updates endpoint information as clients join the wireless network. The Host Tracking Database stores endpoint identifier and location information used by the SD-Access control plane. For wired endpoints, the fabric edge detects the endpoint and registers the binding. For wireless endpoints, the fabric WLC is integrated with the fabric and has the client session context, so it provides the endpoint information needed for HTDB updates. Border nodes do not first register ordinary wireless endpoints; their role is to connect the fabric to external networks and other domains. Fabric APs also do not own the complete EID-to-RLOC registration function in the way the controller does. The design implication is that fabric wireless requires correct WLC integration with Cisco Catalyst Center, fabric site configuration, control-plane reachability, and policy integration through Cisco ISE. Client registration, mobility, and policy enforcement depend on this controller-to-fabric relationship being stable. Reference topics: SD-Access wireless, fabric WLC, Host Tracking Database, endpoint registration, LISP control plane.

Cisco SD-Access uses virtual networks as macro-segmentation boundaries, and those VNs are represented as VRF instances in the fabric. By design, separate VNs do not communicate directly inside the overlay unless the design introduces controlled inter-VN routing. Cisco SD-Access designs commonly use an external fusion router, firewall, or shared-services device to map fabric VNs to external VRFs and selectively exchange routes between them. That is the correct design because it preserves segmentation while allowing policy-controlled access to shared resources or selected networks. GRE tunnels between fabric edges are not the normal SD-Access inter-VN communication method and would bypass the intended fabric policy model. Security Group Tags provide microsegmentation within or across policy domains, but SGTs do not by themselves leak routes between separate virtual networks. Route leaking on fabric border nodes is not the recommended standalone answer here because inter-VN communication is normally provided through a fusion device or firewall outside the fabric. Therefore, the correct solution is external fusion routing with controlled VRF route exchange.

This YANG mapping is based on how IETF, OpenConfig, and Cisco native models differ in portability and schema organization. IETF models are produced through the standards process and are appropriate when the same management structure is expected across vendors for common protocols. OpenConfig models are also vendor-neutral, but they are built around a consistent operational model used heavily for streaming telemetry and multivendor automation. Cisco native models mirror Cisco platform configuration more closely and expose device-specific capabilities that may not exist in common models. The selected answers keep those boundaries clear. This matters because a NETCONF or RESTCONF payload is validated against the YANG schema; a payload written for one model family cannot be assumed to work against another. In design terms, the model family should be selected after confirming device software release support, feature coverage, operational-state requirements, and vendor diversity. Open models give portability; native models give feature completeness. Reference topics: IETF YANG, OpenConfig YANG, Cisco native YANG, schema validation, automation model selection.