Cisco Updated 300-420 Exam Questions and Answers by mira

The correct overlay considerations are that virtual networks provide data-plane isolation and that overlapping IP addresses should be avoided for operational simplicity. In Cisco SD-Access, virtual networks are used for macro segmentation and are commonly mapped to VRFs. This separates routing and forwarding tables between major groups such as corporate users, guests, IoT, and shared services. Security Group Tags provide finer policy control and microsegmentation, but they are not the primary mechanism for data-plane isolation between virtual networks. The phrase “virtual networks should be used for microsegmentation” is therefore inaccurate; microsegmentation is SGT and SGACL driven. Although overlapping IP addresses can technically exist in separate VRF-like contexts, Cisco design practice discourages unnecessary overlap because it complicates troubleshooting, service insertion, external connectivity, and inter-VN communication. A clean overlay address plan improves operations and reduces policy ambiguity. Reference topics: SD-Access overlay design, virtual networks, macro segmentation, SGTs, microsegmentation, overlapping IP avoidance. This also simplifies day-two operations.

Route leaking on R13 and R9 is required so the Level 1 area can make a better exit decision toward the server. In an IS-IS hierarchy, Level 1 routers know detailed topology only inside their own area. For destinations outside the area, they normally follow the closest attached Level 1/Level 2 router, which can produce suboptimal latency when another exit has a better end-to-end path. Route leaking selectively injects more specific Level 2 reachability information into Level 1, allowing routers in the New Office area to evaluate a better path instead of blindly following the nearest attached-bit exit. Changing metric style on R8 alone does not import the external-area route information needed for better path selection. A static route could force a path but would not be a scalable dynamic IS-IS design. Making R8 Level 1/Level 2 does not solve the need to expose the relevant route through the correct area boundary. Reference topics: IS-IS Level 1 and Level 2, attached bit, route leaking, interarea optimization, latency-aware routing.

A /22 subnet is the smallest IPv4 block in the answer set that closely fits a branch expected not to exceed roughly one thousand users while avoiding unnecessary address waste. A /22 contains 1024 total addresses and 1022 usable host addresses after the network and broadcast addresses are reserved. That aligns with the requirement to provide the maximum number of host addresses without selecting a larger block than necessary. A /21 provides 2048 total addresses and 2046 usable hosts, which is materially larger than the stated requirement and wastes address space. The specific 192.168.8.0/22 block also aligns on a valid /22 boundary because /22 networks increment by four in the third octet. A 192.168.16.0/22 is also mathematically valid, but the exhibit determines the available address range; the selected option uses the appropriate block from the displayed plan. Reference topics: IPv4 subnet sizing, CIDR, usable host calculation, branch address planning, VLSM.

The correct IS-IS design combines tuned SPF/PRC behavior with a proper Level 1 and Level 2 hierarchy. Reducing SPF and PRC intervals, within platform and stability limits, helps routers react more quickly to topology changes after a link failure. However, fast timers alone are not enough; the hierarchy must contain instability so physical link flaps in the access layer have limited impact on the rest of the network. Access routers should form Level 1 adjacencies inside their local area, while aggregation routers should operate as Level 1/Level 2 routers to connect the access area to the Level 2 backbone. This design gives access routers a simple local view and uses aggregation as the interarea boundary. Running all access and aggregation routers as L1/L2 across the network increases the size of the backbone and exposes more routers to wider flooding, which is the opposite of the requirement. Redistributing Internet routes into Level 1 is also poor design because it bloats the access area. Therefore, the right choices are C and E. Reference topics: IS-IS hierarchy, L1/L2 design, SPF and PRC tuning, access-layer convergence, fault containment.