Pass Your Cisco 350-501 Exam Easy!

This concern applies to inter-AS VPN option A separation in a different scenario where operators need to interconnect L3VPN sites across two providers without sharing their internal VPNv4 BGP tables. For the deployed EVPN MAC mobility control approach, the relevant caution is instead that rapidly flapping customer MACs can still trigger mobility dampening.

This concern applies to IGMPv3 inclusion filtering in a different scenario where operators need to request multicast only from one specified source at the IPv4 receiver edge. For the deployed EVPN MAC mobility control approach, the relevant caution is instead that rapidly flapping customer MACs can still trigger mobility dampening.

This concern applies to DSCP class marking at ingress in a different scenario where operators need to mark customer traffic into a contracted provider forwarding class before queuing. For the deployed EVPN MAC mobility control approach, the relevant caution is instead that rapidly flapping customer MACs can still trigger mobility dampening.

EVPN route target matching instead addresses a different condition: restrict the import of BGP EVPN routes to the correct tenant service. It would instead require you to configure the intended import/export route target set for each EVI, not the stated goal to interconnect L3VPN sites across two providers without sharing their internal VPNv4 BGP tables.

PIM-SM shared tree initial join instead addresses a different condition: provide multicast to sparse receivers through an RP-assisted distribution process. It would instead require you to configure PIM sparse mode and consistent rendezvous point reachability, not the stated goal to interconnect L3VPN sites across two providers without sharing their internal VPNv4 BGP tables.

shared extranet route import instead addresses a different condition: let only selected tenants reach a common internal service subnet. It would instead require you to create explicit selective route-target import or route-leak policies for the shared service, not the stated goal to interconnect L3VPN sites across two providers without sharing their internal VPNv4 BGP tables.

The proposed step is for EVPN route target matching, whose purpose is to restrict the import of BGP EVPN routes to the correct tenant service. It would not perform the necessary inter-AS VPN option A separation operation: exchange isolated VRF routes over explicit per-VRF handoff subinterfaces.

The proposed step is for PIM-SM shared tree initial join, whose purpose is to provide multicast to sparse receivers through an RP-assisted distribution process. It would not perform the necessary inter-AS VPN option A separation operation: exchange isolated VRF routes over explicit per-VRF handoff subinterfaces.

The proposed step is for shared extranet route import, whose purpose is to let only selected tenants reach a common internal service subnet. It would not perform the necessary inter-AS VPN option A separation operation: exchange isolated VRF routes over explicit per-VRF handoff subinterfaces.

The observation would verify EVPN route target matching under the separate requirement to restrict the import of BGP EVPN routes to the correct tenant service. It does not demonstrate the needed inter-AS VPN option A separation result: customer connectivity works while each AS keeps its own VPN control plane.

The observation would verify PIM-SM shared tree initial join under the separate requirement to provide multicast to sparse receivers through an RP-assisted distribution process. It does not demonstrate the needed inter-AS VPN option A separation result: customer connectivity works while each AS keeps its own VPN control plane.

The observation would verify shared extranet route import under the separate requirement to let only selected tenants reach a common internal service subnet. It does not demonstrate the needed inter-AS VPN option A separation result: customer connectivity works while each AS keeps its own VPN control plane.

This defect belongs to EVPN route target matching, where the affected outcome is to restrict the import of BGP EVPN routes to the correct tenant service. It is not the direct failure mode identified for the inter-AS VPN option A separation design in this case: one provider assumes VPN label transport is shared over a plain VRF interface.

This defect belongs to PIM-SM shared tree initial join, where the affected outcome is to provide multicast to sparse receivers through an RP-assisted distribution process. It is not the direct failure mode identified for the inter-AS VPN option A separation design in this case: one provider assumes VPN label transport is shared over a plain VRF interface.

This defect belongs to shared extranet route import, where the affected outcome is to let only selected tenants reach a common internal service subnet. It is not the direct failure mode identified for the inter-AS VPN option A separation design in this case: one provider assumes VPN label transport is shared over a plain VRF interface.

This concern applies to EVPN route target matching in a different scenario where operators need to restrict the import of BGP EVPN routes to the correct tenant service. For the deployed inter-AS VPN option A separation approach, the relevant caution is instead that per-VRF handoff scaling and operational overhead grow with service count.

This concern applies to PIM-SM shared tree initial join in a different scenario where operators need to provide multicast to sparse receivers through an RP-assisted distribution process. For the deployed inter-AS VPN option A separation approach, the relevant caution is instead that per-VRF handoff scaling and operational overhead grow with service count.

This concern applies to shared extranet route import in a different scenario where operators need to let only selected tenants reach a common internal service subnet. For the deployed inter-AS VPN option A separation approach, the relevant caution is instead that per-VRF handoff scaling and operational overhead grow with service count.

EVPN MAC/IP route type 2 instead addresses a different condition: advertise a reachable customer MAC address over a provider EVPN fabric. It would instead require you to enable MAC learning and Type-2 EVPN route advertisement for the correct service, not the stated goal to exchange labeled VPN routes between autonomous systems through AS border routers.

802.1ad Q-in-Q tag separation instead addresses a different condition: carry duplicate customer VLAN IDs from multiple subscribers over a provider Ethernet access network. It would instead require you to push a provider service VLAN tag while preserving each customer's C-tag, not the stated goal to exchange labeled VPN routes between autonomous systems through AS border routers.

Y.1731 Ethernet delay measurement instead addresses a different condition: measure frame delay and loss across a provisioned Ethernet service. It would instead require you to enable suitable service OAM performance measurement on supported MEPs, not the stated goal to exchange labeled VPN routes between autonomous systems through AS border routers.

The proposed step is for EVPN MAC/IP route type 2, whose purpose is to advertise a reachable customer MAC address over a provider EVPN fabric. It would not perform the necessary inter-AS VPN option B route exchange operation: establish ASBR VPNv4 route exchange and corresponding label handling.

The proposed step is for 802.1ad Q-in-Q tag separation, whose purpose is to carry duplicate customer VLAN IDs from multiple subscribers over a provider Ethernet access network. It would not perform the necessary inter-AS VPN option B route exchange operation: establish ASBR VPNv4 route exchange and corresponding label handling.

The proposed step is for Y.1731 Ethernet delay measurement, whose purpose is to measure frame delay and loss across a provisioned Ethernet service. It would not perform the necessary inter-AS VPN option B route exchange operation: establish ASBR VPNv4 route exchange and corresponding label handling.

The observation would verify EVPN MAC/IP route type 2 under the separate requirement to advertise a reachable customer MAC address over a provider EVPN fabric. It does not demonstrate the needed inter-AS VPN option B route exchange result: VPN reachability crosses the border with the expected labeled route entries.

The observation would verify 802.1ad Q-in-Q tag separation under the separate requirement to carry duplicate customer VLAN IDs from multiple subscribers over a provider Ethernet access network. It does not demonstrate the needed inter-AS VPN option B route exchange result: VPN reachability crosses the border with the expected labeled route entries.

The observation would verify Y.1731 Ethernet delay measurement under the separate requirement to measure frame delay and loss across a provisioned Ethernet service. It does not demonstrate the needed inter-AS VPN option B route exchange result: VPN reachability crosses the border with the expected labeled route entries.

This defect belongs to EVPN MAC/IP route type 2, where the affected outcome is to advertise a reachable customer MAC address over a provider EVPN fabric. It is not the direct failure mode identified for the inter-AS VPN option B route exchange design in this case: only ordinary IPv4 unicast is exchanged without VPN identity information.

This defect belongs to 802.1ad Q-in-Q tag separation, where the affected outcome is to carry duplicate customer VLAN IDs from multiple subscribers over a provider Ethernet access network. It is not the direct failure mode identified for the inter-AS VPN option B route exchange design in this case: only ordinary IPv4 unicast is exchanged without VPN identity information.

This defect belongs to Y.1731 Ethernet delay measurement, where the affected outcome is to measure frame delay and loss across a provisioned Ethernet service. It is not the direct failure mode identified for the inter-AS VPN option B route exchange design in this case: only ordinary IPv4 unicast is exchanged without VPN identity information.

This concern applies to EVPN MAC/IP route type 2 in a different scenario where operators need to advertise a reachable customer MAC address over a provider EVPN fabric. For the deployed inter-AS VPN option B route exchange approach, the relevant caution is instead that ASBR trust and route-target filtering are critical at inter-provider edges.

This concern applies to 802.1ad Q-in-Q tag separation in a different scenario where operators need to carry duplicate customer VLAN IDs from multiple subscribers over a provider Ethernet access network. For the deployed inter-AS VPN option B route exchange approach, the relevant caution is instead that ASBR trust and route-target filtering are critical at inter-provider edges.

This concern applies to Y.1731 Ethernet delay measurement in a different scenario where operators need to measure frame delay and loss across a provisioned Ethernet service. For the deployed inter-AS VPN option B route exchange approach, the relevant caution is instead that ASBR trust and route-target filtering are critical at inter-provider edges.