Pass Your Cisco 350-401 Exam Easy!

Using supported ERSPAN encapsulation from source to routed collector destination with reachable outer IP paths would not meet the need for supported RSPAN source/destination sessions with a dedicated RSPAN VLAN traversing the intermediate links.

Configuring a local SPAN source and an analyzer destination port on the same supported switch would not meet the need for supported RSPAN source/destination sessions with a dedicated RSPAN VLAN traversing the intermediate links.

Configuring a supported Flexible NetFlow record, exporter and monitoring on the appropriate interface and direction would not meet the need for supported RSPAN source/destination sessions with a dedicated RSPAN VLAN traversing the intermediate links.

This test measures a different behavior: Inspect ERSPAN GRE packets at the collector and verify the correct session ID and payload. It does not establish the target outcome. For the documented fault, the direct acceptance test is: verify RSPAN VLAN reachability and mirrored frames at the remote destination port.

This test measures a different behavior: Inspect SPAN session source/destination and confirm captured test frames on the analyzer. It does not establish the target outcome. For the documented fault, the direct acceptance test is: verify RSPAN VLAN reachability and mirrored frames at the remote destination port.

This test measures a different behavior: Inspect NetFlow monitor cache and confirm collector receives expected five-tuple flow fields. It does not establish the target outcome. For the documented fault, the direct acceptance test is: verify RSPAN VLAN reachability and mirrored frames at the remote destination port.

That diagnosis is supported by a different symptom: The analyzer receives no frames even though the source interface is forwarding normally. Here the recorded observation is: the remote analyzer captures nothing despite local source SPAN being active. The applicable cause is: the RSPAN VLAN is not defined or carried across the inter-switch path.

That diagnosis is supported by a different symptom: Traffic capture fails across a routed hop even though the source port sees packets. Here the recorded observation is: the remote analyzer captures nothing despite local source SPAN being active. The applicable cause is: the RSPAN VLAN is not defined or carried across the inter-switch path.

That diagnosis is supported by a different symptom: A collector displays byte totals but no per-application flow records from the router. Here the recorded observation is: the remote analyzer captures nothing despite local source SPAN being active. The applicable cause is: the RSPAN VLAN is not defined or carried across the inter-switch path.

That control reduces a separate risk: The implementation uses a Layer 2 RSPAN assumption across a network lacking VLAN continuity. For the described design, the recurring risk arises from: the RSPAN VLAN is not defined or carried across the inter-switch path. The specific required safeguard is: protect RSPAN VLAN scope and avoid allowing it as a general user-access VLAN.

That control reduces a separate risk: No correctly attached local SPAN destination/source session exists. For the described design, the recurring risk arises from: the RSPAN VLAN is not defined or carried across the inter-switch path. The specific required safeguard is: protect RSPAN VLAN scope and avoid allowing it as a general user-access VLAN.

That control reduces a separate risk: Flexible NetFlow records or monitor attachment are not collecting the required per-flow keys. For the described design, the recurring risk arises from: the RSPAN VLAN is not defined or carried across the inter-switch path. The specific required safeguard is: protect RSPAN VLAN scope and avoid allowing it as a general user-access VLAN.

Ensuring the supported exporter sends compatible IPFIX/NetFlow templates at a suitable refresh interval would not meet the need for supported ERSPAN encapsulation from source to routed collector destination with reachable outer IP paths.

Using supported RSPAN source/destination sessions with a dedicated RSPAN VLAN traversing the intermediate links would not meet the need for supported ERSPAN encapsulation from source to routed collector destination with reachable outer IP paths.

Configuring a local SPAN source and an analyzer destination port on the same supported switch would not meet the need for supported ERSPAN encapsulation from source to routed collector destination with reachable outer IP paths.

This test measures a different behavior: Inspect SPAN session source/destination and confirm captured test frames on the analyzer. It does not establish the target outcome. For the documented fault, the direct acceptance test is: inspect ERSPAN GRE packets at the collector and verify the correct session ID and payload.

This test measures a different behavior: Check collector template receipt and verify fields decode correctly for sample flows. It does not establish the target outcome. For the documented fault, the direct acceptance test is: inspect ERSPAN GRE packets at the collector and verify the correct session ID and payload.

This test measures a different behavior: Verify RSPAN VLAN reachability and mirrored frames at the remote destination port. It does not establish the target outcome. For the documented fault, the direct acceptance test is: inspect ERSPAN GRE packets at the collector and verify the correct session ID and payload.

That diagnosis is supported by a different symptom: The analyzer receives no frames even though the source interface is forwarding normally. Here the recorded observation is: traffic capture fails across a routed hop even though the source port sees packets. The applicable cause is: the implementation uses a Layer 2 RSPAN assumption across a network lacking VLAN continuity.

That diagnosis is supported by a different symptom: Raw datagrams arrive at the collector but display as undecodable unknown fields. Here the recorded observation is: traffic capture fails across a routed hop even though the source port sees packets. The applicable cause is: the implementation uses a Layer 2 RSPAN assumption across a network lacking VLAN continuity.

That diagnosis is supported by a different symptom: The remote analyzer captures nothing despite local source SPAN being active. Here the recorded observation is: traffic capture fails across a routed hop even though the source port sees packets. The applicable cause is: the implementation uses a Layer 2 RSPAN assumption across a network lacking VLAN continuity.

That control reduces a separate risk: The RSPAN VLAN is not defined or carried across the inter-switch path. For the described design, the recurring risk arises from: the implementation uses a Layer 2 RSPAN assumption across a network lacking VLAN continuity. The specific required safeguard is: check ERSPAN destination routability and GRE/MTU handling when moving analyzers.

That control reduces a separate risk: The collector lacks valid compatible templates or has mismatched export protocol expectations. For the described design, the recurring risk arises from: the implementation uses a Layer 2 RSPAN assumption across a network lacking VLAN continuity. The specific required safeguard is: check ERSPAN destination routability and GRE/MTU handling when moving analyzers.

That control reduces a separate risk: No correctly attached local SPAN destination/source session exists. For the described design, the recurring risk arises from: the implementation uses a Layer 2 RSPAN assumption across a network lacking VLAN continuity. The specific required safeguard is: check ERSPAN destination routability and GRE/MTU handling when moving analyzers.

Configuring a local SPAN source and an analyzer destination port on the same supported switch would not match the capture destination bandwidth to the offered mirrored load or reduce capture scope.

Using supported ERSPAN encapsulation from source to routed collector destination with reachable outer IP paths would not match the capture destination bandwidth to the offered mirrored load or reduce capture scope.

Configuring a supported Flexible NetFlow record, exporter and monitoring on the appropriate interface and direction would not match the capture destination bandwidth to the offered mirrored load or reduce capture scope.

This test measures a different behavior: Inspect NetFlow monitor cache and confirm collector receives expected five-tuple flow fields. It does not establish the target outcome. For the documented fault, the direct acceptance test is: compare source byte rate with destination dropped/missed capture counters under load.

This test measures a different behavior: Inspect ERSPAN GRE packets at the collector and verify the correct session ID and payload. It does not establish the target outcome. For the documented fault, the direct acceptance test is: compare source byte rate with destination dropped/missed capture counters under load.

This test measures a different behavior: Inspect SPAN session source/destination and confirm captured test frames on the analyzer. It does not establish the target outcome. For the documented fault, the direct acceptance test is: compare source byte rate with destination dropped/missed capture counters under load.

That diagnosis is supported by a different symptom: Traffic capture fails across a routed hop even though the source port sees packets. Here the recorded observation is: a trace omits bursts that are visible in source interface statistics. The applicable cause is: the monitor destination is oversubscribed and silently drops mirrored packets.

That diagnosis is supported by a different symptom: The analyzer receives no frames even though the source interface is forwarding normally. Here the recorded observation is: a trace omits bursts that are visible in source interface statistics. The applicable cause is: the monitor destination is oversubscribed and silently drops mirrored packets.

That diagnosis is supported by a different symptom: A collector displays byte totals but no per-application flow records from the router. Here the recorded observation is: a trace omits bursts that are visible in source interface statistics. The applicable cause is: the monitor destination is oversubscribed and silently drops mirrored packets.