Pass Your Cisco 350-501 Exam Easy!

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.

IGMPv3 inclusion filtering instead addresses a different condition: request multicast only from one specified source at the IPv4 receiver edge. It would instead require you to send appropriate IGMPv3 INCLUDE-mode membership state, not the stated goal to enable an IPv6 receiver to join multicast groups on the first-hop router.

802.1ah provider backbone bridging instead addresses a different condition: reduce provider core visibility into customer MAC addresses for a large Ethernet service. It would instead require you to apply PBB service encapsulation with backbone MAC and service identifiers where supported, not the stated goal to enable an IPv6 receiver to join multicast groups on the first-hop router.

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 enable an IPv6 receiver to join multicast groups on the first-hop router.

The proposed step is for IGMPv3 inclusion filtering, whose purpose is to request multicast only from one specified source at the IPv4 receiver edge. It would not perform the necessary MLD IPv6 membership operation: activate the appropriate MLD behavior on the IPv6 multicast access.

The proposed step is for 802.1ah provider backbone bridging, whose purpose is to reduce provider core visibility into customer MAC addresses for a large Ethernet service. It would not perform the necessary MLD IPv6 membership operation: activate the appropriate MLD behavior on the IPv6 multicast access.

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 MLD IPv6 membership operation: activate the appropriate MLD behavior on the IPv6 multicast access.

The observation would verify IGMPv3 inclusion filtering under the separate requirement to request multicast only from one specified source at the IPv4 receiver edge. It does not demonstrate the needed MLD IPv6 membership result: IPv6 group membership state is present and traffic is forwarded to the receiver.

The observation would verify 802.1ah provider backbone bridging under the separate requirement to reduce provider core visibility into customer MAC addresses for a large Ethernet service. It does not demonstrate the needed MLD IPv6 membership result: IPv6 group membership state is present and traffic is forwarded to the receiver.

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 MLD IPv6 membership result: IPv6 group membership state is present and traffic is forwarded to the receiver.

This defect belongs to IGMPv3 inclusion filtering, where the affected outcome is to request multicast only from one specified source at the IPv4 receiver edge. It is not the direct failure mode identified for the MLD IPv6 membership design in this case: IPv4 IGMP signaling is used expecting IPv6 MLD state to appear.

This defect belongs to 802.1ah provider backbone bridging, where the affected outcome is to reduce provider core visibility into customer MAC addresses for a large Ethernet service. It is not the direct failure mode identified for the MLD IPv6 membership design in this case: IPv4 IGMP signaling is used expecting IPv6 MLD state to appear.

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 MLD IPv6 membership design in this case: IPv4 IGMP signaling is used expecting IPv6 MLD state to appear.

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 MLD IPv6 membership approach, the relevant caution is instead that MLD querier and PIMv6 configuration must both be consistent.

This concern applies to 802.1ah provider backbone bridging in a different scenario where operators need to reduce provider core visibility into customer MAC addresses for a large Ethernet service. For the deployed MLD IPv6 membership approach, the relevant caution is instead that MLD querier and PIMv6 configuration must both be consistent.

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 MLD IPv6 membership approach, the relevant caution is instead that MLD querier and PIMv6 configuration must both be consistent.

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 restore a receiver group whose stream is arriving on an unexpected interface.

G.8032 Ethernet ring protection instead addresses a different condition: protect a Carrier Ethernet ring from forwarding loops during normal operation. It would instead require you to configure Ethernet ring protection with its ring protection link behavior, not the stated goal to restore a receiver group whose stream is arriving on an unexpected interface.

802.1ah provider backbone bridging instead addresses a different condition: reduce provider core visibility into customer MAC addresses for a large Ethernet service. It would instead require you to apply PBB service encapsulation with backbone MAC and service identifiers where supported, not the stated goal to restore a receiver group whose stream is arriving on an unexpected interface.

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 multicast RPF route failure operation: correct the unicast or multicast RPF path toward the source or rendezvous point.

The proposed step is for G.8032 Ethernet ring protection, whose purpose is to protect a Carrier Ethernet ring from forwarding loops during normal operation. It would not perform the necessary multicast RPF route failure operation: correct the unicast or multicast RPF path toward the source or rendezvous point.

The proposed step is for 802.1ah provider backbone bridging, whose purpose is to reduce provider core visibility into customer MAC addresses for a large Ethernet service. It would not perform the necessary multicast RPF route failure operation: correct the unicast or multicast RPF path toward the source or rendezvous point.

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 multicast RPF route failure result: the incoming interface matches RPF expectations and unwanted drops cease.

The observation would verify G.8032 Ethernet ring protection under the separate requirement to protect a Carrier Ethernet ring from forwarding loops during normal operation. It does not demonstrate the needed multicast RPF route failure result: the incoming interface matches RPF expectations and unwanted drops cease.

The observation would verify 802.1ah provider backbone bridging under the separate requirement to reduce provider core visibility into customer MAC addresses for a large Ethernet service. It does not demonstrate the needed multicast RPF route failure result: the incoming interface matches RPF expectations and unwanted drops cease.

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 multicast RPF route failure design in this case: IGMP membership is repeatedly refreshed while upstream RPF still fails.

This defect belongs to G.8032 Ethernet ring protection, where the affected outcome is to protect a Carrier Ethernet ring from forwarding loops during normal operation. It is not the direct failure mode identified for the multicast RPF route failure design in this case: IGMP membership is repeatedly refreshed while upstream RPF still fails.

This defect belongs to 802.1ah provider backbone bridging, where the affected outcome is to reduce provider core visibility into customer MAC addresses for a large Ethernet service. It is not the direct failure mode identified for the multicast RPF route failure design in this case: IGMP membership is repeatedly refreshed while upstream RPF still fails.

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 multicast RPF route failure approach, the relevant caution is instead that asymmetric routing requires accurate multicast RPF design.

This concern applies to G.8032 Ethernet ring protection in a different scenario where operators need to protect a Carrier Ethernet ring from forwarding loops during normal operation. For the deployed multicast RPF route failure approach, the relevant caution is instead that asymmetric routing requires accurate multicast RPF design.

This concern applies to 802.1ah provider backbone bridging in a different scenario where operators need to reduce provider core visibility into customer MAC addresses for a large Ethernet service. For the deployed multicast RPF route failure approach, the relevant caution is instead that asymmetric routing requires accurate multicast RPF design.