Pass Your Cisco 350-501 Exam Easy!

This defect belongs to SRv6 End behavior, where the affected outcome is to process an SRv6 local End SID for transit forwarding to the next segment. It is not the direct failure mode identified for the TI-LFA SRLG protection design in this case: a nominally alternate link shares the same SRLG and fails in the same cut.

This defect belongs to LDP router ID transport stability, where the affected outcome is to keep an LDP session bound to a stable routable label-switching router identity. It is not the direct failure mode identified for the TI-LFA SRLG protection design in this case: a nominally alternate link shares the same SRLG and fails in the same cut.

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 TI-LFA SRLG protection design in this case: a nominally alternate link shares the same SRLG and fails in the same cut.

SRv6 locator algorithm 128 instead addresses a different condition: separate a low-delay service routing intent from the normal algorithm-zero locator. It would instead require you to assign an SRv6 locator to Flexible Algorithm 128 with compatible IGP configuration, not the stated goal to select the desired segment-routing policy candidate path among valid alternatives.

PHP penultimate hop behavior instead addresses a different condition: avoid unnecessary label lookup at the final transport destination. It would instead require you to use the intended implicit-null or penultimate-hop-pop transport behavior, not the stated goal to select the desired segment-routing policy candidate path among valid alternatives.

DS-TE class type allocation instead addresses a different condition: reserve traffic engineering resources separately for differentiated service classes. It would instead require you to apply the intended DS-TE bandwidth constraint model and class-type reservations, not the stated goal to select the desired segment-routing policy candidate path among valid alternatives.

The proposed step is for SRv6 locator algorithm 128, whose purpose is to separate a low-delay service routing intent from the normal algorithm-zero locator. It would not perform the necessary SR policy candidate preference operation: set a coherent SR policy candidate path preference order.

The proposed step is for PHP penultimate hop behavior, whose purpose is to avoid unnecessary label lookup at the final transport destination. It would not perform the necessary SR policy candidate preference operation: set a coherent SR policy candidate path preference order.

The proposed step is for DS-TE class type allocation, whose purpose is to reserve traffic engineering resources separately for differentiated service classes. It would not perform the necessary SR policy candidate preference operation: set a coherent SR policy candidate path preference order.

The observation would verify SRv6 locator algorithm 128 under the separate requirement to separate a low-delay service routing intent from the normal algorithm-zero locator. It does not demonstrate the needed SR policy candidate preference result: the highest eligible preferred candidate becomes active in policy state.

The observation would verify PHP penultimate hop behavior under the separate requirement to avoid unnecessary label lookup at the final transport destination. It does not demonstrate the needed SR policy candidate preference result: the highest eligible preferred candidate becomes active in policy state.

The observation would verify DS-TE class type allocation under the separate requirement to reserve traffic engineering resources separately for differentiated service classes. It does not demonstrate the needed SR policy candidate preference result: the highest eligible preferred candidate becomes active in policy state.

This defect belongs to SRv6 locator algorithm 128, where the affected outcome is to separate a low-delay service routing intent from the normal algorithm-zero locator. It is not the direct failure mode identified for the SR policy candidate preference design in this case: an unintended dynamic candidate wins because preferences were not assigned.

This defect belongs to PHP penultimate hop behavior, where the affected outcome is to avoid unnecessary label lookup at the final transport destination. It is not the direct failure mode identified for the SR policy candidate preference design in this case: an unintended dynamic candidate wins because preferences were not assigned.

This defect belongs to DS-TE class type allocation, where the affected outcome is to reserve traffic engineering resources separately for differentiated service classes. It is not the direct failure mode identified for the SR policy candidate preference design in this case: an unintended dynamic candidate wins because preferences were not assigned.

SR binding SID policy reuse instead addresses a different condition: allow an upstream router to steer into an established SR policy with one segment. It would instead require you to assign a binding SID that resolves to the intended local SR policy, not the stated goal to force traffic through ordered provider waypoints while retaining ingress steering.

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 force traffic through ordered provider waypoints while retaining ingress steering.

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 force traffic through ordered provider waypoints while retaining ingress steering.

The proposed step is for SR binding SID policy reuse, whose purpose is to allow an upstream router to steer into an established SR policy with one segment. It would not perform the necessary SR traffic-engineered SID list operation: install an SR-TE policy with the ordered segment list and matching headend steering.

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 SR traffic-engineered SID list operation: install an SR-TE policy with the ordered segment list and matching headend steering.

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 SR traffic-engineered SID list operation: install an SR-TE policy with the ordered segment list and matching headend steering.

The observation would verify SR binding SID policy reuse under the separate requirement to allow an upstream router to steer into an established SR policy with one segment. It does not demonstrate the needed SR traffic-engineered SID list result: forwarding probes traverse the intended waypoints in list order.

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 SR traffic-engineered SID list result: forwarding probes traverse the intended waypoints in list order.

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 SR traffic-engineered SID list result: forwarding probes traverse the intended waypoints in list order.

This defect belongs to SR binding SID policy reuse, where the affected outcome is to allow an upstream router to steer into an established SR policy with one segment. It is not the direct failure mode identified for the SR traffic-engineered SID list design in this case: ordinary SPF forwarding ignores the required ordered waypoints.

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 SR traffic-engineered SID list design in this case: ordinary SPF forwarding ignores the required ordered waypoints.

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 SR traffic-engineered SID list design in this case: ordinary SPF forwarding ignores the required ordered waypoints.

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 allow an upstream router to steer into an established SR policy with one segment.

PCE constrained path computation instead addresses a different condition: delegate constrained SR-TE or MPLS-TE path computation to a path computation entity. It would instead require you to use a PCE-PCC architecture with agreed objectives and topology visibility, not the stated goal to allow an upstream router to steer into an established SR policy with one segment.

LDP hello discovery timer resilience instead addresses a different condition: keep an LDP link adjacency stable through brief congestion without hiding real forwarding loss. It would instead require you to coordinate supported LDP hello interval and discovery holdtime settings on both core neighbors, not the stated goal to allow an upstream router to steer into an established SR policy with one segment.

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 SR binding SID policy reuse operation: assign a binding SID that resolves to the intended local SR policy.

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 SR binding SID policy reuse operation: assign a binding SID that resolves to the intended local SR policy.

The proposed step is for LDP hello discovery timer resilience, whose purpose is to keep an LDP link adjacency stable through brief congestion without hiding real forwarding loss. It would not perform the necessary SR binding SID policy reuse operation: assign a binding SID that resolves to the intended local SR policy.