Pass Your Cisco 350-501 Exam Easy!

The proposed step is for Flex Algorithm affinity exclusion, whose purpose is to exclude links carrying a forbidden administrative affinity from one SR shortest-path computation. It would not perform the necessary SR OAM path verification operation: run supported segment-routing OAM or policy traceroute verification.

The proposed step is for LDP directly connected hello discovery, whose purpose is to form LDP adjacency on a provider core link carrying labeled traffic. It would not perform the necessary SR OAM path verification operation: run supported segment-routing OAM or policy traceroute verification.

The proposed step is for SRLG diverse recovery, whose purpose is to avoid primary and backup TE paths sharing the same underlying fiber risk. It would not perform the necessary SR OAM path verification operation: run supported segment-routing OAM or policy traceroute verification.

The observation would verify Flex Algorithm affinity exclusion under the separate requirement to exclude links carrying a forbidden administrative affinity from one SR shortest-path computation. It does not demonstrate the needed SR OAM path verification result: the probe follows the active SID list and identifies the failing segment if any.

The observation would verify LDP directly connected hello discovery under the separate requirement to form LDP adjacency on a provider core link carrying labeled traffic. It does not demonstrate the needed SR OAM path verification result: the probe follows the active SID list and identifies the failing segment if any.

The observation would verify SRLG diverse recovery under the separate requirement to avoid primary and backup TE paths sharing the same underlying fiber risk. It does not demonstrate the needed SR OAM path verification result: the probe follows the active SID list and identifies the failing segment if any.

This defect belongs to Flex Algorithm affinity exclusion, where the affected outcome is to exclude links carrying a forbidden administrative affinity from one SR shortest-path computation. It is not the direct failure mode identified for the SR OAM path verification design in this case: BGP policy existence is treated as proof that data-plane labels forward correctly.

This defect belongs to LDP directly connected hello discovery, where the affected outcome is to form LDP adjacency on a provider core link carrying labeled traffic. It is not the direct failure mode identified for the SR OAM path verification design in this case: BGP policy existence is treated as proof that data-plane labels forward correctly.

This defect belongs to SRLG diverse recovery, where the affected outcome is to avoid primary and backup TE paths sharing the same underlying fiber risk. It is not the direct failure mode identified for the SR OAM path verification design in this case: BGP policy existence is treated as proof that data-plane labels forward correctly.

PCE stale topology risk instead addresses a different condition: avoid calculating SR-TE paths from outdated connectivity or bandwidth state. It would instead require you to synchronize PCE topology and performance feeds before delegated path calculation, not the stated goal to restore customer forwarding after a failed adjacency while preserving service-specific decapsulation.

MPLS-TE preemption priority instead addresses a different condition: allow higher-priority reservation requests to displace lower-priority capacity commitments. It would instead require you to configure setup and hold priorities consistently with the provider TE policy, not the stated goal to restore customer forwarding after a failed adjacency while preserving service-specific decapsulation.

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 restore customer forwarding after a failed adjacency while preserving service-specific decapsulation.

The proposed step is for PCE stale topology risk, whose purpose is to avoid calculating SR-TE paths from outdated connectivity or bandwidth state. It would not perform the necessary SRv6 failure repair order operation: activate TI-LFA or SR policy backup then verify downstream service SID reachability.

The proposed step is for MPLS-TE preemption priority, whose purpose is to allow higher-priority reservation requests to displace lower-priority capacity commitments. It would not perform the necessary SRv6 failure repair order operation: activate TI-LFA or SR policy backup then verify downstream service SID reachability.

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 failure repair order operation: activate TI-LFA or SR policy backup then verify downstream service SID reachability.

The observation would verify PCE stale topology risk under the separate requirement to avoid calculating SR-TE paths from outdated connectivity or bandwidth state. It does not demonstrate the needed SRv6 failure repair order result: traffic reaches the egress VRF through the repair path and service lookup succeeds.

The observation would verify MPLS-TE preemption priority under the separate requirement to allow higher-priority reservation requests to displace lower-priority capacity commitments. It does not demonstrate the needed SRv6 failure repair order result: traffic reaches the egress VRF through the repair path and service lookup succeeds.

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 failure repair order result: traffic reaches the egress VRF through the repair path and service lookup succeeds.

This defect belongs to PCE stale topology risk, where the affected outcome is to avoid calculating SR-TE paths from outdated connectivity or bandwidth state. It is not the direct failure mode identified for the SRv6 failure repair order design in this case: a repaired transport path exists but the final service SID is unreachable.

This defect belongs to MPLS-TE preemption priority, where the affected outcome is to allow higher-priority reservation requests to displace lower-priority capacity commitments. It is not the direct failure mode identified for the SRv6 failure repair order design in this case: a repaired transport path exists but the final service SID is unreachable.

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 failure repair order design in this case: a repaired transport path exists but the final service SID is unreachable.

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 choose a repeatable explicit path when an operator needs fixed audited waypoints.

MPLS-TE preemption priority instead addresses a different condition: allow higher-priority reservation requests to displace lower-priority capacity commitments. It would instead require you to configure setup and hold priorities consistently with the provider TE policy, not the stated goal to choose a repeatable explicit path when an operator needs fixed audited waypoints.

SRLG diverse recovery instead addresses a different condition: avoid primary and backup TE paths sharing the same underlying fiber risk. It would instead require you to define and exclude common Shared Risk Link Groups in the recovery path computation, not the stated goal to choose a repeatable explicit path when an operator needs fixed audited waypoints.

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 SR static versus dynamic path choice operation: configure an explicit SR segment list candidate rather than only dynamic SPF computation.

The proposed step is for MPLS-TE preemption priority, whose purpose is to allow higher-priority reservation requests to displace lower-priority capacity commitments. It would not perform the necessary SR static versus dynamic path choice operation: configure an explicit SR segment list candidate rather than only dynamic SPF computation.

The proposed step is for SRLG diverse recovery, whose purpose is to avoid primary and backup TE paths sharing the same underlying fiber risk. It would not perform the necessary SR static versus dynamic path choice operation: configure an explicit SR segment list candidate rather than only dynamic SPF computation.

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 SR static versus dynamic path choice result: policy forwarding traverses the recorded waypoint order under healthy conditions.

The observation would verify MPLS-TE preemption priority under the separate requirement to allow higher-priority reservation requests to displace lower-priority capacity commitments. It does not demonstrate the needed SR static versus dynamic path choice result: policy forwarding traverses the recorded waypoint order under healthy conditions.

The observation would verify SRLG diverse recovery under the separate requirement to avoid primary and backup TE paths sharing the same underlying fiber risk. It does not demonstrate the needed SR static versus dynamic path choice result: policy forwarding traverses the recorded waypoint order under healthy conditions.

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 SR static versus dynamic path choice design in this case: an automatically recomputed dynamic path violates the mandated deterministic route.

This defect belongs to MPLS-TE preemption priority, where the affected outcome is to allow higher-priority reservation requests to displace lower-priority capacity commitments. It is not the direct failure mode identified for the SR static versus dynamic path choice design in this case: an automatically recomputed dynamic path violates the mandated deterministic route.

This defect belongs to SRLG diverse recovery, where the affected outcome is to avoid primary and backup TE paths sharing the same underlying fiber risk. It is not the direct failure mode identified for the SR static versus dynamic path choice design in this case: an automatically recomputed dynamic path violates the mandated deterministic route.