Pass Your Cisco 350-401 Exam Easy!

This test measures a different behavior: Trace outer IP VTEP connectivity separately from inner host VLAN and VNIs. It does not establish the target outcome. For the documented fault, the direct acceptance test is: check control-plane host-location registration and remote cached location after a move.

This test measures a different behavior: Check the endpoint registration and map resolution to the correct fabric edge RLOC. It does not establish the target outcome. For the documented fault, the direct acceptance test is: check control-plane host-location registration and remote cached location after a move.

This test measures a different behavior: Inspect endpoint attachment on the edge and VXLAN forwarding toward the selected remote RLOC. It does not establish the target outcome. For the documented fault, the direct acceptance test is: check control-plane host-location registration and remote cached location after a move.

That diagnosis is supported by a different symptom: An endpoint is reachable on its local edge but remote fabric edges cannot resolve its current location. Here the recorded observation is: interfabric traffic blackholes at the old switch while the endpoint communicates locally on B. The applicable cause is: the host location mapping has not converged to the new edge RLOC.

That diagnosis is supported by a different symptom: Remote traffic is bridged out an ordinary trunk rather than encapsulated through the fabric overlay. Here the recorded observation is: interfabric traffic blackholes at the old switch while the endpoint communicates locally on B. The applicable cause is: the host location mapping has not converged to the new edge RLOC.

That diagnosis is supported by a different symptom: The overlay fails even though a host VLAN is manually permitted on one spine-facing switchport. Here the recorded observation is: interfabric traffic blackholes at the old switch while the endpoint communicates locally on B. The applicable cause is: the host location mapping has not converged to the new edge RLOC.

That control reduces a separate risk: Its EID-to-RLOC registration is missing or incorrect in the fabric control plane. For the described design, the recurring risk arises from: the host location mapping has not converged to the new edge RLOC. The specific required safeguard is: test mobility events, stale map-cache handling and control-plane reachability.

That control reduces a separate risk: The access switch was not functioning as an SD-Access fabric edge for that VLAN/virtual network. For the described design, the recurring risk arises from: the host location mapping has not converged to the new edge RLOC. The specific required safeguard is: test mobility events, stale map-cache handling and control-plane reachability.

That control reduces a separate risk: The routed underlay cannot reach the remote VTEP/RLOC; extending inner VLANs on transit does not solve this. For the described design, the recurring risk arises from: the host location mapping has not converged to the new edge RLOC. The specific required safeguard is: test mobility events, stale map-cache handling and control-plane reachability.

Using resilient Layer 3 underlay adjacencies to carry overlay RLOC reachability between fabric devices would not maintain a routed underlay that carries outer VXLAN reachability.

Assigning endpoints to correct SD-Access virtual networks and carry their traffic over the shared routed underlay would not maintain a routed underlay that carries outer VXLAN reachability.

Using a fabric edge node that applies policy and VXLAN encapsulation for attached endpoint flows would not maintain a routed underlay that carries outer VXLAN reachability.

This test measures a different behavior: Check IPv4 routing neighbors and ECMP toward remote fabric RLOC addresses. It does not establish the target outcome. For the documented fault, the direct acceptance test is: trace outer IP VTEP connectivity separately from inner host VLAN and VNIs.

This test measures a different behavior: Inspect endpoint attachment on the edge and VXLAN forwarding toward the selected remote RLOC. It does not establish the target outcome. For the documented fault, the direct acceptance test is: trace outer IP VTEP connectivity separately from inner host VLAN and VNIs.

This test measures a different behavior: Verify distinct VN/VNI assignments and the intended isolated forwarding tables for the two groups. It does not establish the target outcome. For the documented fault, the direct acceptance test is: trace outer IP VTEP connectivity separately from inner host VLAN and VNIs.

That diagnosis is supported by a different symptom: Remote traffic is bridged out an ordinary trunk rather than encapsulated through the fabric overlay. Here the recorded observation is: the overlay fails even though a host VLAN is manually permitted on one spine-facing switchport. The applicable cause is: the routed underlay cannot reach the remote VTEP/RLOC; extending inner VLANs on transit does not solve this.

That diagnosis is supported by a different symptom: VXLAN packets are dropped because the remote RLOC is absent from the underlay RIB. Here the recorded observation is: the overlay fails even though a host VLAN is manually permitted on one spine-facing switchport. The applicable cause is: the routed underlay cannot reach the remote VTEP/RLOC; extending inner VLANs on transit does not solve this.

That diagnosis is supported by a different symptom: A guest endpoint unexpectedly reaches internal finance services across the campus. Here the recorded observation is: the overlay fails even though a host VLAN is manually permitted on one spine-facing switchport. The applicable cause is: the routed underlay cannot reach the remote VTEP/RLOC; extending inner VLANs on transit does not solve this.

That control reduces a separate risk: The endpoint was placed into the wrong virtual network or external fusion routing bypasses isolation. For the described design, the recurring risk arises from: the routed underlay cannot reach the remote VTEP/RLOC; extending inner VLANs on transit does not solve this. The specific required safeguard is: validate underlay routing and VTEP reachability before onboarding new virtual networks.

That control reduces a separate risk: The device lacks routed underlay reachability rather than an end-user VLAN trunk. For the described design, the recurring risk arises from: the routed underlay cannot reach the remote VTEP/RLOC; extending inner VLANs on transit does not solve this. The specific required safeguard is: validate underlay routing and VTEP reachability before onboarding new virtual networks.

That control reduces a separate risk: The access switch was not functioning as an SD-Access fabric edge for that VLAN/virtual network. For the described design, the recurring risk arises from: the routed underlay cannot reach the remote VTEP/RLOC; extending inner VLANs on transit does not solve this. The specific required safeguard is: validate underlay routing and VTEP reachability before onboarding new virtual networks.

Placing a properly configured fabric border node at the fabric-to-external routing boundary would not connect the legacy campus to an appropriate fabric border or extended-node handoff with controlled routes and VLAN/service scope.

Routing approved shared services through the fabric handoff with correct helper/service reachability and policy would not connect the legacy campus to an appropriate fabric border or extended-node handoff with controlled routes and VLAN/service scope.

Using the fabric control-plane node/LISP mapping service for endpoint-to-RLOC lookup rather than flooding every fabric edge would not connect the legacy campus to an appropriate fabric border or extended-node handoff with controlled routes and VLAN/service scope.

This test measures a different behavior: Verify routing exchange between fabric VNs and authorized outside networks at the border. It does not establish the target outcome. For the documented fault, the direct acceptance test is: verify legacy endpoint reachability through the handoff without unapproved cross-VN traffic.

This test measures a different behavior: Confirm a new fabric endpoint receives DHCP and resolves DNS via the approved external service. It does not establish the target outcome. For the documented fault, the direct acceptance test is: verify legacy endpoint reachability through the handoff without unapproved cross-VN traffic.

This test measures a different behavior: Check the endpoint registration and map resolution to the correct fabric edge RLOC. It does not establish the target outcome. For the documented fault, the direct acceptance test is: verify legacy endpoint reachability through the handoff without unapproved cross-VN traffic.

That diagnosis is supported by a different symptom: Fabric endpoints reach one another but cannot reach the permitted external data center. Here the recorded observation is: an unconverted legacy VLAN has no communication path to allowed fabric services. The applicable cause is: the migration handoff and fabric border integration were omitted.

That diagnosis is supported by a different symptom: New fabric devices get APIPA/no lease while static-IP devices reach the fabric gateway. Here the recorded observation is: an unconverted legacy VLAN has no communication path to allowed fabric services. The applicable cause is: the migration handoff and fabric border integration were omitted.

That diagnosis is supported by a different symptom: An endpoint is reachable on its local edge but remote fabric edges cannot resolve its current location. Here the recorded observation is: an unconverted legacy VLAN has no communication path to allowed fabric services. The applicable cause is: the migration handoff and fabric border integration were omitted.

That control reduces a separate risk: Its EID-to-RLOC registration is missing or incorrect in the fabric control plane. For the described design, the recurring risk arises from: the migration handoff and fabric border integration were omitted. The specific required safeguard is: keep legacy/fabric handoff addresses, VLANs, routes and policy boundaries in migration tests.

That control reduces a separate risk: No viable border handoff/routing policy connects the fabric virtual network to the external domain. For the described design, the recurring risk arises from: the migration handoff and fabric border integration were omitted. The specific required safeguard is: keep legacy/fabric handoff addresses, VLANs, routes and policy boundaries in migration tests.

That control reduces a separate risk: The required external DHCP relay or policy path was not integrated for migrated fabric endpoints. For the described design, the recurring risk arises from: the migration handoff and fabric border integration were omitted. The specific required safeguard is: keep legacy/fabric handoff addresses, VLANs, routes and policy boundaries in migration tests.