Pass Your Cisco 350-501 Exam Easy!

The proposed step is for SRv6 H.Encaps policy, whose purpose is to attach a segment routing IPv6 outer header to impose an explicit traffic-engineering path. It would not perform the necessary SRv6 End behavior operation: install the required local End function and forwarding information.

The proposed step is for CBTS tunnel service assignment, whose purpose is to steer traffic classes over traffic-engineered tunnels according to service treatment. It would not perform the necessary SRv6 End behavior operation: install the required local End function and forwarding information.

The proposed step is for PCE constrained path computation, whose purpose is to delegate constrained SR-TE or MPLS-TE path computation to a path computation entity. It would not perform the necessary SRv6 End behavior operation: install the required local End function and forwarding information.

The observation would verify SRv6 H.Encaps policy under the separate requirement to attach a segment routing IPv6 outer header to impose an explicit traffic-engineering path. It does not demonstrate the needed SRv6 End behavior result: the destination SID updates routing to the next segment without changing the customer payload.

The observation would verify CBTS tunnel service assignment under the separate requirement to steer traffic classes over traffic-engineered tunnels according to service treatment. It does not demonstrate the needed SRv6 End behavior result: the destination SID updates routing to the next segment without changing the customer payload.

The observation would verify PCE constrained path computation under the separate requirement to delegate constrained SR-TE or MPLS-TE path computation to a path computation entity. It does not demonstrate the needed SRv6 End behavior result: the destination SID updates routing to the next segment without changing the customer payload.

This defect belongs to SRv6 H.Encaps policy, where the affected outcome is to attach a segment routing IPv6 outer header to impose an explicit traffic-engineering path. It is not the direct failure mode identified for the SRv6 End behavior design in this case: an End.DT behavior is configured when only transit endpoint forwarding was requested.

This defect belongs to CBTS tunnel service assignment, where the affected outcome is to steer traffic classes over traffic-engineered tunnels according to service treatment. It is not the direct failure mode identified for the SRv6 End behavior design in this case: an End.DT behavior is configured when only transit endpoint forwarding was requested.

This defect belongs to PCE constrained path computation, where the affected outcome is to delegate constrained SR-TE or MPLS-TE path computation to a path computation entity. It is not the direct failure mode identified for the SRv6 End behavior design in this case: an End.DT behavior is configured when only transit endpoint forwarding was requested.

SRv6 failure repair order instead addresses a different condition: restore customer forwarding after a failed adjacency while preserving service-specific decapsulation. It would instead require you to activate TI-LFA or SR policy backup then verify downstream service SID reachability, not the stated goal to steer an SRv6 packet onto a specific next-hop adjacency at a segment endpoint.

RSVP bandwidth reservation instead addresses a different condition: reserve a bounded amount of link bandwidth for an MPLS TE LSP. It would instead require you to signal the required bandwidth and use correct TE admission information, not the stated goal to steer an SRv6 packet onto a specific next-hop adjacency at a segment endpoint.

CBTS tunnel service assignment instead addresses a different condition: steer traffic classes over traffic-engineered tunnels according to service treatment. It would instead require you to classify flows and apply class-based tunnel selection for the supported forwarding policy, not the stated goal to steer an SRv6 packet onto a specific next-hop adjacency at a segment endpoint.

The proposed step is for SRv6 failure repair order, whose purpose is to restore customer forwarding after a failed adjacency while preserving service-specific decapsulation. It would not perform the necessary SRv6 End.X behavior operation: use a local End.X SID bound to the desired adjacency or next hop.

The proposed step is for RSVP bandwidth reservation, whose purpose is to reserve a bounded amount of link bandwidth for an MPLS TE LSP. It would not perform the necessary SRv6 End.X behavior operation: use a local End.X SID bound to the desired adjacency or next hop.

The proposed step is for CBTS tunnel service assignment, whose purpose is to steer traffic classes over traffic-engineered tunnels according to service treatment. It would not perform the necessary SRv6 End.X behavior operation: use a local End.X SID bound to the desired adjacency or next hop.

The observation would verify SRv6 failure repair order under the separate requirement to restore customer forwarding after a failed adjacency while preserving service-specific decapsulation. It does not demonstrate the needed SRv6 End.X behavior result: the endpoint forwards the packet over the chosen adjacency.

The observation would verify RSVP bandwidth reservation under the separate requirement to reserve a bounded amount of link bandwidth for an MPLS TE LSP. It does not demonstrate the needed SRv6 End.X behavior result: the endpoint forwards the packet over the chosen adjacency.

The observation would verify CBTS tunnel service assignment under the separate requirement to steer traffic classes over traffic-engineered tunnels according to service treatment. It does not demonstrate the needed SRv6 End.X behavior result: the endpoint forwards the packet over the chosen adjacency.

This defect belongs to SRv6 failure repair order, where the affected outcome is to restore customer forwarding after a failed adjacency while preserving service-specific decapsulation. It is not the direct failure mode identified for the SRv6 End.X behavior design in this case: a generic node End SID leaves the egress link subject to ordinary routing.

This defect belongs to RSVP bandwidth reservation, where the affected outcome is to reserve a bounded amount of link bandwidth for an MPLS TE LSP. It is not the direct failure mode identified for the SRv6 End.X behavior design in this case: a generic node End SID leaves the egress link subject to ordinary routing.

This defect belongs to CBTS tunnel service assignment, where the affected outcome is to steer traffic classes over traffic-engineered tunnels according to service treatment. It is not the direct failure mode identified for the SRv6 End.X behavior design in this case: a generic node End SID leaves the egress link subject to ordinary routing.

TI-LFA node protection instead addresses a different condition: protect a traffic flow against failure of the adjacent intermediate node. It would instead require you to select a node-protecting TI-LFA backup rather than merely a link bypass, not the stated goal to deliver SRv6-encapsulated VPN traffic into the correct customer routing table.

RSVP fast reroute detour instead addresses a different condition: protect a traffic-engineered LSP locally against a planned link outage. It would instead require you to configure FRR backup protection for the affected RSVP-TE link or node, not the stated goal to deliver SRv6-encapsulated VPN traffic into the correct customer routing table.

LDP session protection instead addresses a different condition: keep an LDP peer session through a brief loss of direct link connectivity. It would instead require you to enable supported LDP session protection and targeted-hello retention, not the stated goal to deliver SRv6-encapsulated VPN traffic into the correct customer routing table.

The proposed step is for TI-LFA node protection, whose purpose is to protect a traffic flow against failure of the adjacent intermediate node. It would not perform the necessary SRv6 VPN decapsulation operation: use a suitable End.DT4 or End.DT6 service SID on the egress PE.

The proposed step is for RSVP fast reroute detour, whose purpose is to protect a traffic-engineered LSP locally against a planned link outage. It would not perform the necessary SRv6 VPN decapsulation operation: use a suitable End.DT4 or End.DT6 service SID on the egress PE.

The proposed step is for LDP session protection, whose purpose is to keep an LDP peer session through a brief loss of direct link connectivity. It would not perform the necessary SRv6 VPN decapsulation operation: use a suitable End.DT4 or End.DT6 service SID on the egress PE.

The observation would verify TI-LFA node protection under the separate requirement to protect a traffic flow against failure of the adjacent intermediate node. It does not demonstrate the needed SRv6 VPN decapsulation result: decapsulated traffic is looked up in the correct customer VRF.

The observation would verify RSVP fast reroute detour under the separate requirement to protect a traffic-engineered LSP locally against a planned link outage. It does not demonstrate the needed SRv6 VPN decapsulation result: decapsulated traffic is looked up in the correct customer VRF.

The observation would verify LDP session protection under the separate requirement to keep an LDP peer session through a brief loss of direct link connectivity. It does not demonstrate the needed SRv6 VPN decapsulation result: decapsulated traffic is looked up in the correct customer VRF.

This defect belongs to TI-LFA node protection, where the affected outcome is to protect a traffic flow against failure of the adjacent intermediate node. It is not the direct failure mode identified for the SRv6 VPN decapsulation design in this case: a transit End SID is used expecting to select a customer VRF automatically.

This defect belongs to RSVP fast reroute detour, where the affected outcome is to protect a traffic-engineered LSP locally against a planned link outage. It is not the direct failure mode identified for the SRv6 VPN decapsulation design in this case: a transit End SID is used expecting to select a customer VRF automatically.

This defect belongs to LDP session protection, where the affected outcome is to keep an LDP peer session through a brief loss of direct link connectivity. It is not the direct failure mode identified for the SRv6 VPN decapsulation design in this case: a transit End SID is used expecting to select a customer VRF automatically.