Pass Your Cisco 350-501 Exam Easy!

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.

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 SR binding SID policy reuse result: traffic reaching the binding SID follows the associated policy candidate path.

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 SR binding SID policy reuse result: traffic reaching the binding SID follows the associated policy candidate path.

The observation would verify LDP hello discovery timer resilience under the separate requirement to keep an LDP link adjacency stable through brief congestion without hiding real forwarding loss. It does not demonstrate the needed SR binding SID policy reuse result: traffic reaching the binding SID follows the associated policy candidate path.

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 SR binding SID policy reuse design in this case: a node SID is used expecting to encode an entire explicit policy.

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 SR binding SID policy reuse design in this case: a node SID is used expecting to encode an entire explicit policy.

This defect belongs to LDP hello discovery timer resilience, where the affected outcome is to keep an LDP link adjacency stable through brief congestion without hiding real forwarding loss. It is not the direct failure mode identified for the SR binding SID policy reuse design in this case: a node SID is used expecting to encode an entire explicit policy.

SRv6 locator aggregation instead addresses a different condition: allocate routable prefixes to identify SRv6-capable nodes and behaviors. It would instead require you to configure a valid SRv6 locator prefix and corresponding IGP advertisement, not the stated goal to allow a centralized PCE to update a delegated SR-TE candidate path on a headend.

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 a centralized PCE to update a delegated SR-TE candidate path on a headend.

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 a centralized PCE to update a delegated SR-TE candidate path on a headend.

The proposed step is for SRv6 locator aggregation, whose purpose is to allocate routable prefixes to identify SRv6-capable nodes and behaviors. It would not perform the necessary PCE PCC path delegation operation: establish PCEP PCE-PCC coordination with explicit delegation controls.

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 PCE PCC path delegation operation: establish PCEP PCE-PCC coordination with explicit delegation controls.

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 PCE PCC path delegation operation: establish PCEP PCE-PCC coordination with explicit delegation controls.

The observation would verify SRv6 locator aggregation under the separate requirement to allocate routable prefixes to identify SRv6-capable nodes and behaviors. It does not demonstrate the needed PCE PCC path delegation result: the PCC accepts and installs updated delegated path information.

The observation would verify LDP hello discovery timer resilience under the separate requirement to keep an LDP link adjacency stable through brief congestion without hiding real forwarding loss. It does not demonstrate the needed PCE PCC path delegation result: the PCC accepts and installs updated delegated path information.

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 PCE PCC path delegation result: the PCC accepts and installs updated delegated path information.

This defect belongs to SRv6 locator aggregation, where the affected outcome is to allocate routable prefixes to identify SRv6-capable nodes and behaviors. It is not the direct failure mode identified for the PCE PCC path delegation design in this case: a static path remains installed when the operator expects PCE updates.

This defect belongs to LDP hello discovery timer resilience, where the affected outcome is to keep an LDP link adjacency stable through brief congestion without hiding real forwarding loss. It is not the direct failure mode identified for the PCE PCC path delegation design in this case: a static path remains installed when the operator expects PCE updates.

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 PCE PCC path delegation design in this case: a static path remains installed when the operator expects PCE updates.

TI-LFA link repair instead addresses a different condition: protect an SR transport link using a loop-free post-convergence backup. It would instead require you to enable supported topology-independent LFA protection in the IGP, not the stated goal to select the proper intent-based SR policy for a destination using BGP route color.

IGP LDP synchronization instead addresses a different condition: avoid forwarding traffic onto a link before necessary MPLS labels are usable. It would instead require you to apply LDP IGP synchronization so route preference waits for LDP readiness, not the stated goal to select the proper intent-based SR policy for a destination using BGP route color.

LDP label binding verification instead addresses a different condition: check the label binding for a specific IGP destination before enabling a VPN. It would instead require you to inspect local and remote LDP bindings and installed labeled forwarding entries, not the stated goal to select the proper intent-based SR policy for a destination using BGP route color.

The proposed step is for TI-LFA link repair, whose purpose is to protect an SR transport link using a loop-free post-convergence backup. It would not perform the necessary SR policy color endpoint steering operation: steer matching colored routes to an SR policy with correct color and endpoint.

The proposed step is for IGP LDP synchronization, whose purpose is to avoid forwarding traffic onto a link before necessary MPLS labels are usable. It would not perform the necessary SR policy color endpoint steering operation: steer matching colored routes to an SR policy with correct color and endpoint.

The proposed step is for LDP label binding verification, whose purpose is to check the label binding for a specific IGP destination before enabling a VPN. It would not perform the necessary SR policy color endpoint steering operation: steer matching colored routes to an SR policy with correct color and endpoint.

The observation would verify TI-LFA link repair under the separate requirement to protect an SR transport link using a loop-free post-convergence backup. It does not demonstrate the needed SR policy color endpoint steering result: routes with the intent community resolve to the chosen SR policy.

The observation would verify IGP LDP synchronization under the separate requirement to avoid forwarding traffic onto a link before necessary MPLS labels are usable. It does not demonstrate the needed SR policy color endpoint steering result: routes with the intent community resolve to the chosen SR policy.

The observation would verify LDP label binding verification under the separate requirement to check the label binding for a specific IGP destination before enabling a VPN. It does not demonstrate the needed SR policy color endpoint steering result: routes with the intent community resolve to the chosen SR policy.

This defect belongs to TI-LFA link repair, where the affected outcome is to protect an SR transport link using a loop-free post-convergence backup. It is not the direct failure mode identified for the SR policy color endpoint steering design in this case: a matching destination exists but no color-and-endpoint candidate policy can resolve.

This defect belongs to IGP LDP synchronization, where the affected outcome is to avoid forwarding traffic onto a link before necessary MPLS labels are usable. It is not the direct failure mode identified for the SR policy color endpoint steering design in this case: a matching destination exists but no color-and-endpoint candidate policy can resolve.

This defect belongs to LDP label binding verification, where the affected outcome is to check the label binding for a specific IGP destination before enabling a VPN. It is not the direct failure mode identified for the SR policy color endpoint steering design in this case: a matching destination exists but no color-and-endpoint candidate policy can resolve.