Pass Your Cisco 350-401 Exam Easy!

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: confirm a new fabric endpoint receives DHCP and resolves DNS via the approved external service.

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: confirm a new fabric endpoint receives DHCP and resolves DNS via the approved external service.

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

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: new fabric devices get APIPA/no lease while static-IP devices reach the fabric gateway. The applicable cause is: the required external DHCP relay or policy path was not integrated for migrated fabric endpoints.

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: new fabric devices get APIPA/no lease while static-IP devices reach the fabric gateway. The applicable cause is: the required external DHCP relay or policy path was not integrated for migrated fabric endpoints.

That diagnosis is supported by a different symptom: An unconverted legacy VLAN has no communication path to allowed fabric services. Here the recorded observation is: new fabric devices get APIPA/no lease while static-IP devices reach the fabric gateway. The applicable cause is: the required external DHCP relay or policy path was not integrated for migrated fabric endpoints.

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 required external DHCP relay or policy path was not integrated for migrated fabric endpoints. The specific required safeguard is: test identity/segmentation and essential services for every migrated user subnet.

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 required external DHCP relay or policy path was not integrated for migrated fabric endpoints. The specific required safeguard is: test identity/segmentation and essential services for every migrated user subnet.

That control reduces a separate risk: The migration handoff and fabric border integration were omitted. For the described design, the recurring risk arises from: the required external DHCP relay or policy path was not integrated for migrated fabric endpoints. The specific required safeguard is: test identity/segmentation and essential services for every migrated user subnet.

Using output shaping toward the contracted rate to buffer bursts rather than relying on carrier discard would not interpret the class bandwidth share and apply suitable class-based weighted fair queuing for the intended minimum service.

Matching trusted voice traffic into an appropriate QoS class and applying the intended service policy at the congested interface would not interpret the class bandwidth share and apply suitable class-based weighted fair queuing for the intended minimum service.

Applying a suitable policer with explicit conform/exceed actions to the guest class at the intended interface would not interpret the class bandwidth share and apply suitable class-based weighted fair queuing for the intended minimum service.

This test measures a different behavior: Observe local shaping queue depth and lowered carrier drop counters under controlled offered load. It does not establish the target outcome. For the documented fault, the direct acceptance test is: under congestion, verify transactional class service stays above its intended share without starving other classes.

This test measures a different behavior: Compare conform/exceed counters and confirm out-of-profile packets follow the documented drop or remark action. It does not establish the target outcome. For the documented fault, the direct acceptance test is: under congestion, verify transactional class service stays above its intended share without starving other classes.

This test measures a different behavior: Check class-map counters rise for the voice flow and verify queue service with simultaneous bulk traffic. It does not establish the target outcome. For the documented fault, the direct acceptance test is: under congestion, verify transactional class service stays above its intended share without starving other classes.

That diagnosis is supported by a different symptom: Voice traffic enters the default class even though a strict-priority queue exists. Here the recorded observation is: business transactions lose throughput when the default class consumes the entire congested WAN queue. The applicable cause is: the class has no effective bandwidth reservation or policy is not active on the egress interface.

That diagnosis is supported by a different symptom: Provider discard counters increase during bursts even though average utilization appears within contract. Here the recorded observation is: business transactions lose throughput when the default class consumes the entire congested WAN queue. The applicable cause is: the class has no effective bandwidth reservation or policy is not active on the egress interface.

That diagnosis is supported by a different symptom: Guest bursts continue consuming uplink capacity despite a configured threshold in an unrelated class. Here the recorded observation is: business transactions lose throughput when the default class consumes the entire congested WAN queue. The applicable cause is: the class has no effective bandwidth reservation or policy is not active on the egress interface.

Attaching the vNICs to an appropriate virtual switch/port group on the host would not meet the need for a Type 1 bare-metal hypervisor to directly manage physical hardware and hosted VMs.

Using a hosted Type 2 hypervisor appropriate for laptop-based experiments rather than claiming bare-metal architecture would not meet the need for a Type 1 bare-metal hypervisor to directly manage physical hardware and hosted VMs.

Aligning virtual port-group VLAN tagging and physical uplink 802.1Q trunk permitted VLANs would not meet the need for a Type 1 bare-metal hypervisor to directly manage physical hardware and hosted VMs.

This test measures a different behavior: Verify the virtualization process runs on top of the user's installed host OS and creates isolated guest VMs. It does not establish the target outcome. For the documented fault, the direct acceptance test is: inspect the hypervisor deployment and confirm no separate desktop host OS mediates its hardware access.

This test measures a different behavior: Capture east-west frames on the virtual switch and verify no physical-uplink transit is required for local guests. It does not establish the target outcome. For the documented fault, the direct acceptance test is: inspect the hypervisor deployment and confirm no separate desktop host OS mediates its hardware access.

This test measures a different behavior: Verify tagged VLAN traffic across virtual and physical switch boundaries. It does not establish the target outcome. For the documented fault, the direct acceptance test is: inspect the hypervisor deployment and confirm no separate desktop host OS mediates its hardware access.

That diagnosis is supported by a different symptom: Second-level virtual routers report hardware-assisted virtualization unavailable. Here the recorded observation is: the proposal relies on a workstation application that starts only after Windows boots and calls it a bare-metal hypervisor. The applicable cause is: the solution is a hosted Type 2 hypervisor dependent on the general-purpose host OS.

That diagnosis is supported by a different symptom: Two guests in separate isolated virtual networks cannot ARP for one another despite using the same physical host. Here the recorded observation is: the proposal relies on a workstation application that starts only after Windows boots and calls it a bare-metal hypervisor. The applicable cause is: the solution is a hosted Type 2 hypervisor dependent on the general-purpose host OS.

That diagnosis is supported by a different symptom: VMs on VLAN 120 communicate internally but cannot reach external devices on VLAN 120. Here the recorded observation is: the proposal relies on a workstation application that starts only after Windows boots and calls it a bare-metal hypervisor. The applicable cause is: the solution is a hosted Type 2 hypervisor dependent on the general-purpose host OS.

That control reduces a separate risk: The hypervisor is Type 2 and depends on the underlying host OS lifecycle. For the described design, the recurring risk arises from: the solution is a hosted Type 2 hypervisor dependent on the general-purpose host OS. The specific required safeguard is: use supported enterprise hypervisor clustering and host update procedures rather than desktop VM assumptions.

That control reduces a separate risk: Their virtual NICs attach to different isolated virtual switches or port groups. For the described design, the recurring risk arises from: the solution is a hosted Type 2 hypervisor dependent on the general-purpose host OS. The specific required safeguard is: use supported enterprise hypervisor clustering and host update procedures rather than desktop VM assumptions.

That control reduces a separate risk: The physical uplink trunk or virtual port-group VLAN mapping excludes VLAN 120. For the described design, the recurring risk arises from: the solution is a hosted Type 2 hypervisor dependent on the general-purpose host OS. The specific required safeguard is: use supported enterprise hypervisor clustering and host update procedures rather than desktop VM assumptions.

Enabling supported nested virtualization/CPU assist exposure where required by the hypervisor and hardware would not meet the need for a hosted Type 2 hypervisor appropriate for laptop-based experiments rather than claiming bare-metal architecture.

Choosing a Type 1 bare-metal hypervisor to directly manage physical hardware and hosted VMs would not meet the need for a hosted Type 2 hypervisor appropriate for laptop-based experiments rather than claiming bare-metal architecture.

Creating separate guest VMs with allocated vCPUs, memory and virtual NICs managed by the hypervisor would not meet the need for a hosted Type 2 hypervisor appropriate for laptop-based experiments rather than claiming bare-metal architecture.