Pass Your Cisco 350-501 Exam Easy!

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 PIM-SSM source-specific join approach, the relevant caution is instead that the receiver must know and signal the intended multicast source.

This concern applies to EVPN multihomed all-active Ethernet segment in a different scenario where operators need to let a CE use two provider edges without losing its active Ethernet path on one PE failure. For the deployed PIM-SSM source-specific join approach, the relevant caution is instead that the receiver must know and signal the intended multicast source.

This concern applies to controlled Internet breakout in a different scenario where operators need to provide Internet access for an L3VPN tenant without leaking private customer prefixes. For the deployed PIM-SSM source-specific join approach, the relevant caution is instead that the receiver must know and signal the intended multicast source.

PIM-SSM source-specific join instead addresses a different condition: let subscribers request an explicitly selected multicast source and group pair. It would instead require you to use SSM with source-aware membership such as IGMPv3 on supported receivers, not the stated goal to support a many-to-many multicast service using appropriate shared distribution state.

EVPN MAC mobility control instead addresses a different condition: maintain forwarding when a customer virtual machine moves between EVPN access PEs. It would instead require you to apply MAC mobility and sequence handling for newly advertised locations, not the stated goal to support a many-to-many multicast service using appropriate shared distribution state.

traffic policing excess handling instead addresses a different condition: enforce a hard contracted rate with an explicit action for out-of-profile traffic. It would instead require you to use a policer with appropriate committed rate and drop or remark behavior, not the stated goal to support a many-to-many multicast service using appropriate shared distribution state.

The proposed step is for PIM-SSM source-specific join, whose purpose is to let subscribers request an explicitly selected multicast source and group pair. It would not perform the necessary PIM bidirectional shared delivery operation: configure supported bidirectional PIM and corresponding RP infrastructure.

The proposed step is for EVPN MAC mobility control, whose purpose is to maintain forwarding when a customer virtual machine moves between EVPN access PEs. It would not perform the necessary PIM bidirectional shared delivery operation: configure supported bidirectional PIM and corresponding RP infrastructure.

The proposed step is for traffic policing excess handling, whose purpose is to enforce a hard contracted rate with an explicit action for out-of-profile traffic. It would not perform the necessary PIM bidirectional shared delivery operation: configure supported bidirectional PIM and corresponding RP infrastructure.

The observation would verify PIM-SSM source-specific join under the separate requirement to let subscribers request an explicitly selected multicast source and group pair. It does not demonstrate the needed PIM bidirectional shared delivery result: forwarding follows the bidirectional shared tree without source-specific shortest path switching.

The observation would verify EVPN MAC mobility control under the separate requirement to maintain forwarding when a customer virtual machine moves between EVPN access PEs. It does not demonstrate the needed PIM bidirectional shared delivery result: forwarding follows the bidirectional shared tree without source-specific shortest path switching.

The observation would verify traffic policing excess handling under the separate requirement to enforce a hard contracted rate with an explicit action for out-of-profile traffic. It does not demonstrate the needed PIM bidirectional shared delivery result: forwarding follows the bidirectional shared tree without source-specific shortest path switching.

This defect belongs to PIM-SSM source-specific join, where the affected outcome is to let subscribers request an explicitly selected multicast source and group pair. It is not the direct failure mode identified for the PIM bidirectional shared delivery design in this case: PIM-SM source tree behavior is expected to apply to BIDIR shared-tree traffic.

This defect belongs to EVPN MAC mobility control, where the affected outcome is to maintain forwarding when a customer virtual machine moves between EVPN access PEs. It is not the direct failure mode identified for the PIM bidirectional shared delivery design in this case: PIM-SM source tree behavior is expected to apply to BIDIR shared-tree traffic.

This defect belongs to traffic policing excess handling, where the affected outcome is to enforce a hard contracted rate with an explicit action for out-of-profile traffic. It is not the direct failure mode identified for the PIM bidirectional shared delivery design in this case: PIM-SM source tree behavior is expected to apply to BIDIR shared-tree traffic.

This concern applies to PIM-SSM source-specific join in a different scenario where operators need to let subscribers request an explicitly selected multicast source and group pair. For the deployed PIM bidirectional shared delivery approach, the relevant caution is instead that bidirectional mode has distinct DF and topology design requirements.

This concern applies to EVPN MAC mobility control in a different scenario where operators need to maintain forwarding when a customer virtual machine moves between EVPN access PEs. For the deployed PIM bidirectional shared delivery approach, the relevant caution is instead that bidirectional mode has distinct DF and topology design requirements.

This concern applies to traffic policing excess handling in a different scenario where operators need to enforce a hard contracted rate with an explicit action for out-of-profile traffic. For the deployed PIM bidirectional shared delivery approach, the relevant caution is instead that bidirectional mode has distinct DF and topology design requirements.

MLD IPv6 membership instead addresses a different condition: enable an IPv6 receiver to join multicast groups on the first-hop router. It would instead require you to activate the appropriate MLD behavior on the IPv6 multicast access, not the stated goal to request multicast only from one specified source at the IPv4 receiver edge.

L3VPN label blackhole diagnosis instead addresses a different condition: investigate a VPNv4 route that exists in BGP but does not carry packets end to end. It would instead require you to check transport label and VPN service label resolution from ingress to egress, not the stated goal to request multicast only from one specified source at the IPv4 receiver edge.

EVPN single-active access design instead addresses a different condition: make only one provider edge forward traffic for a protected customer Ethernet segment. It would instead require you to configure supported single-active EVPN multihoming and designated-forwarder behavior, not the stated goal to request multicast only from one specified source at the IPv4 receiver edge.

The proposed step is for MLD IPv6 membership, whose purpose is to enable an IPv6 receiver to join multicast groups on the first-hop router. It would not perform the necessary IGMPv3 inclusion filtering operation: send appropriate IGMPv3 INCLUDE-mode membership state.

The proposed step is for L3VPN label blackhole diagnosis, whose purpose is to investigate a VPNv4 route that exists in BGP but does not carry packets end to end. It would not perform the necessary IGMPv3 inclusion filtering operation: send appropriate IGMPv3 INCLUDE-mode membership state.

The proposed step is for EVPN single-active access design, whose purpose is to make only one provider edge forward traffic for a protected customer Ethernet segment. It would not perform the necessary IGMPv3 inclusion filtering operation: send appropriate IGMPv3 INCLUDE-mode membership state.

The observation would verify MLD IPv6 membership under the separate requirement to enable an IPv6 receiver to join multicast groups on the first-hop router. It does not demonstrate the needed IGMPv3 inclusion filtering result: the last-hop router forwards only the approved source/group traffic.

The observation would verify L3VPN label blackhole diagnosis under the separate requirement to investigate a VPNv4 route that exists in BGP but does not carry packets end to end. It does not demonstrate the needed IGMPv3 inclusion filtering result: the last-hop router forwards only the approved source/group traffic.

The observation would verify EVPN single-active access design under the separate requirement to make only one provider edge forward traffic for a protected customer Ethernet segment. It does not demonstrate the needed IGMPv3 inclusion filtering result: the last-hop router forwards only the approved source/group traffic.

This defect belongs to MLD IPv6 membership, where the affected outcome is to enable an IPv6 receiver to join multicast groups on the first-hop router. It is not the direct failure mode identified for the IGMPv3 inclusion filtering design in this case: IGMPv2 group-only membership is treated as if it encoded a source filter.

This defect belongs to L3VPN label blackhole diagnosis, where the affected outcome is to investigate a VPNv4 route that exists in BGP but does not carry packets end to end. It is not the direct failure mode identified for the IGMPv3 inclusion filtering design in this case: IGMPv2 group-only membership is treated as if it encoded a source filter.

This defect belongs to EVPN single-active access design, where the affected outcome is to make only one provider edge forward traffic for a protected customer Ethernet segment. It is not the direct failure mode identified for the IGMPv3 inclusion filtering design in this case: IGMPv2 group-only membership is treated as if it encoded a source filter.

This concern applies to MLD IPv6 membership in a different scenario where operators need to enable an IPv6 receiver to join multicast groups on the first-hop router. For the deployed IGMPv3 inclusion filtering approach, the relevant caution is instead that application and switch support for IGMPv3 is required.

This concern applies to L3VPN label blackhole diagnosis in a different scenario where operators need to investigate a VPNv4 route that exists in BGP but does not carry packets end to end. For the deployed IGMPv3 inclusion filtering approach, the relevant caution is instead that application and switch support for IGMPv3 is required.

This concern applies to EVPN single-active access design in a different scenario where operators need to make only one provider edge forward traffic for a protected customer Ethernet segment. For the deployed IGMPv3 inclusion filtering approach, the relevant caution is instead that application and switch support for IGMPv3 is required.