300-420 Practice Questions

The correct overlay considerations are that virtual networks provide data-plane isolation and that overlapping IP addresses should be avoided for operational simplicity. In Cisco SD-Access, virtual networks are used for macro segmentation and are commonly mapped to VRFs. This separates routing and forwarding tables between major groups such as corporate users, guests, IoT, and shared services. Security Group Tags provide finer policy control and microsegmentation, but they are not the primary mechanism for data-plane isolation between virtual networks. The phrase “virtual networks should be used for microsegmentation” is therefore inaccurate; microsegmentation is SGT and SGACL driven. Although overlapping IP addresses can technically exist in separate VRF-like contexts, Cisco design practice discourages unnecessary overlap because it complicates troubleshooting, service insertion, external connectivity, and inter-VN communication. A clean overlay address plan improves operations and reduces policy ambiguity. Reference topics: SD-Access overlay design, virtual networks, macro segmentation, SGTs, microsegmentation, overlapping IP avoidance. This also simplifies day-two operations.

Forward error correction and quality of service are the two listed techniques that directly improve application experience in a Cisco SD-WAN design. Forward error correction protects selected application traffic by sending recovery information so packet loss can be corrected without waiting for retransmission. That is especially useful for real-time voice and video traffic, where retransmission delay can degrade quality. QoS improves application treatment by classifying, marking, queuing, shaping, and prioritizing traffic according to business intent and application sensitivity. Cisco SD-WAN designs commonly combine application-aware routing, QoS, and loss-mitigation features to keep critical traffic on the best path and preserve service quality during congestion or impairment. A stateful firewall, AMP, and Cisco Umbrella improve security posture, but they do not primarily improve application experience in the forwarding-quality sense asked by the question. They may protect applications, but they do not directly address loss, delay, jitter, and congestion treatment. Therefore, FEC and QoS are the best answers. Reference topics: Cisco SD-WAN application experience, FEC, QoS, loss mitigation, real-time traffic handling.

The drag-and-drop mapping is based on how Cisco differentiates YANG model families used for model-driven programmability. IETF models are standards-based and are intended for broad interoperability across vendors. They are the usual choice when the design priority is a consistent baseline for multivendor configuration or operational state. OpenConfig models are also vendor-neutral, but they are developed by the OpenConfig community and often provide an operationally consistent structure for telemetry and configuration across platforms. Cisco native models are vendor-specific models that expose detailed Cisco IOS XE, IOS XR, or NX-OS features, including capabilities that may not be represented in IETF or OpenConfig models. The design choice is therefore not simply “one model is always best.” It depends on whether the requirement prioritizes portability, abstraction, or complete Cisco feature coverage. For a standards-driven multivendor design, use IETF or OpenConfig where sufficient. For Cisco-specific device features, use Cisco native models. Reference topics: YANG models, IETF models, OpenConfig, Cisco native models, NETCONF/RESTCONF programmability.

An additional Cisco SD-Access fabric site requires edge and border roles in addition to the control-plane function. Edge nodes connect wired endpoints, access-layer devices, and sometimes access points into the fabric. They perform endpoint detection, anycast gateway functions, and fabric encapsulation for user traffic. Border nodes provide connectivity between the fabric site and external networks such as the WAN, data center, internet edge, or shared services. Without edge nodes, the site has no practical access-layer fabric attachment for endpoints. Without border nodes, the site cannot properly exchange traffic with resources outside the local fabric. A wireless LAN controller may be needed when fabric wireless is part of the design, but it is not one of the mandatory fabric roles for every additional site. Leaf and cEdge are not Cisco SD-Access fabric roles in this context. Reference topics: Cisco SD-Access fabric roles, edge node, border node, control-plane node, fabric site expansion.

The drag-and-drop mapping separates WAN connectivity technologies by the service characteristics they deliver. Cisco enterprise WAN designs distinguish private WAN options, such as MPLS Layer 3 VPN, Ethernet WAN, VPLS, and VPWS, from Internet-based options such as broadband, LTE, and VPN overlays. Layer 3 MPLS VPN gives the provider responsibility for routing between customer sites and is commonly used when private any-to-any routing, QoS treatment, and segmentation are required. Layer 2 services such as VPWS and VPLS extend customer Layer 2 adjacency across a provider network; VPWS is point-to-point, while VPLS is multipoint. Internet and cellular links are typically lower-cost and fast to deploy, but they require overlay security, such as IPsec, DMVPN, or SD-WAN encryption, when used for enterprise private traffic. The selected mapping therefore aligns each description with the WAN category that actually provides that behavior. In design work, the architect must compare latency, resiliency, SLA, QoS preservation, encryption requirements, routing control, and operational ownership before selecting the WAN type. Reference topics: enterprise WAN connectivity, MPLS VPN, VPLS, VPWS, Internet VPN, cellular backup.

The two practical OSPF convergence improvements are enabling Bidirectional Forwarding Detection and tuning OSPF timers and throttling behavior. Cisco describes BFD as a protocol designed to provide fast forwarding-path failure detection across media, encapsulations, topologies, and routing protocols. With OSPF, BFD allows a neighbor failure to be detected rapidly without depending only on the OSPF dead interval. OSPF parameters can also be tuned, including SPF scheduling, LSA generation, and LSA arrival throttling, so the control plane reacts quickly but not recklessly during instability. Merging all areas into one backbone area is not a convergence improvement; it usually increases the size of the link-state database and the impact of topology changes. Making every nonbackbone area stub may reduce external LSA scope, but it is not universally valid and does not directly solve failure detection. Spanning the same IP network across multiple OSPF areas is a poor design and can create operational ambiguity. Therefore, BFD plus careful OSPF parameter tuning are the appropriate convergence-focused design actions.