Deal of The Day! Hurry Up, Grab the Special Discount - Save 25% - Ends In 00:00:00 Coupon code: SAVE25
Welcome to Pass4Success

- Free Preparation Discussions

Cisco 300-420 Exam - Topic 3 Question 129 Discussion

Posted by Jenise on Jun 30, 2026 at 02:05 PM

Refer to the exhibit.

Refer to the exhibit An engineer is designing a hierarchical ISIS solution for an enterprise customer with these requirements

Users in areas 25 and 55 send and receive traffic from both backbone areas

Link flaps in areas 35 and 45 must not impact other areas

Routers will double within the next 12 months in areas 35 and 45

Which design must the engineer select?

Suggested Answer: C

The IS-IS hierarchy should place access or internal area routers at Level 1, boundary routers at Level 1/2, and backbone routers at Level 2. In this exhibit, users in areas 25 and 55 must send and receive traffic through both backbone areas, while link flaps in areas 35 and 45 must not affect other areas. Cisco IS-IS design uses Level 1 areas to contain local topology changes and Level 2 routing to interconnect areas through the backbone. Level 1/2 routers sit at the area boundary and leak or advertise reachability between the local Level 1 area and the Level 2 backbone. Option C matches that hierarchy by placing A-series routers as Level 1, B-series routers as Level 1/2, and C-series routers as Level 2. Making too many routers Level 1/2 would expand the impact of topology changes and reduce scaling benefits. Making backbone routers Level 1 would break interarea design. Reference topics: IS-IS hierarchy, Level 1, Level 2, Level 1/2 routers, failure-domain containment, enterprise scaling.


Get Premium 300-420 Questions as Interactive Web-Based Practice Test or PDF Real Exam Format Detailed Explanations Instant Access Get Your Practice Test
23 comments · newest first
KA
Kattie 2 days ago
I think option A could work, but I’m not sure about the link flaps.
CA
Carisa 7 days ago
I’m leaning towards option C. It seems more balanced.
FR
Fredric 12 days ago
Agreed! I think option B makes sense for the requirements.
RO
Rodrigo 17 days ago
This question is tricky! I feel like it requires deep understanding.
JA
Jani 22 days ago
Let’s see what the others think!
AR
Ardella 27 days ago
Good points! But I’m sticking with B for the stability factor.
TA
Tamala 1 month ago
I still lean towards C. It offers flexibility for future growth.
BR
Brynn 1 month ago
Right! Plus, doubling routers means we need a robust design.
JA
Jani 1 month ago
Exactly! Option B ensures that areas 35 and 45 won't affect others.
AR
Ardella 2 months ago
But what about link flaps? We need stability.
TA
Tamala 2 months ago
Option C seems solid too. It supports scalability.
BR
Brynn 2 months ago
I think option B is the best choice. It balances the levels well.
JA
Jani 2 months ago
I agree! The hierarchical design is crucial here.
AR
Ardella 2 months ago
This question is tricky! I feel like it requires deep understanding.
NI
Niesha 2 months ago
The doubling of routers in areas 35 and 45 is a big factor to consider!
PA
Paul 3 months ago
A series routers Level 1/2 are definitely needed for scalability.
ST
Stephen 3 months ago
Surprised that link flaps won't affect other areas, isn't that risky?
NG
Ngoc 3 months ago
I disagree, option C seems more balanced for the requirements.
VE
Velda 3 months ago
I think option B is the best choice for this setup.
DE
Demetra 3 months ago
I vaguely recall that Level 1 routers are better for stability in certain areas. Maybe option C could be the right choice?
RA
Rashad 3 months ago
I’m a bit confused about the impact of doubling routers in areas 35 and 45. Does that mean we need more Level 2 routers?
WI
William 4 months ago
I think I practiced a similar question where the focus was on minimizing disruptions. I feel like Level 1/2 routers might be key here.
JO
Joaquin 4 months ago
I remember something about how Level 1 routers handle intra-area traffic, but I'm not sure which option best isolates the link flaps.
0/2000 characters

Save Cancel