MENU
A network engineer must segregate three interconnected campus networks using IS-IS routing. A two-layer hierarchy must be used to support large routing domains and to avoid more specific routes from each campus network being advertised to other campus network routers automatically. Which two actions does the engineer take to accomplish this segregation? (Choose two.)
Suggested Answer: C
Get Premium 300-420 Questions
as Interactive Web-Based Practice Test or PDF
Real Exam Format
Detailed Explanations
Instant Access
Get Your Practice Test
38 comments · newest first
CH
Cherelle
11 months ago
I think A is a bit misleading, B is definitely the better choice.
MI
Micheal
11 months ago
D is irrelevant here, MTU doesn’t affect routing hierarchy.
DO
Dortha
11 months ago
Wait, can you really use the same NET value for all campuses? Sounds off.
MA
Margurite
11 months ago
Totally agree with B, that’s how you set up the backbone!
HO
Horace
12 months ago
B and E are the right moves for IS-IS segregation.
GA
Gaynell
12 months ago
I feel like we should definitely configure internal routers with Level 1 routing, but I can't remember if we need Level 2 routers at the edge as well.
GL
Gladys
1 year ago
I'm a bit confused about the MTU values mentioned in option D. I don't recall that being a requirement for IS-IS segregation.
ME
Merilyn
1 year ago
I remember practicing a question similar to this where we had to designate backbone routers. I think option B sounds right for that.
CA
Cassi
1 year ago
I think we need to assign unique IS-IS NET values for each campus to keep the routing domains separate, but I'm not sure about the second action.
LO
Lorrie
1 year ago
The key is to avoid more specific routes from each campus being advertised to other campus routers. Assigning unique IS-IS NET values and using Level 1 routing internally should help with that.
MA
Marisha
1 year ago
I'm a bit unsure about the MTU size requirement. Do we really need to configure a larger MTU for the Level 2 backbone routers?
BE
Becky
1 year ago
I'm pretty confident I know the right actions to take here. Designating Level 1/Level 2 backbone routers at the edge of each campus and assigning unique IS-IS NET values should do the trick.
GI
Gianna
1 year ago
This question seems straightforward, but I want to make sure I understand the key requirements correctly before selecting my answers.
RE
Rebbecca
1 year ago
Okay, let's think this through step-by-step. We need to segregate the campus networks using IS-IS routing, and a two-layer hierarchy is required.
VE
Veronica
1 year ago
Hmm, this is a tricky one. I'll need to really think through the potential cultural biases and differences in industry practices that could come into play. Gotta be careful not to make assumptions based on my own background.
PA
Paris
1 year ago
This seems like a straightforward question about service interactions. I'll carefully read through the options and think about the role of Service B in the scenario.
DE
Desmond
1 year ago
Ah, the joys of campus networking. It's like herding IS-IS cats, isn't it?
CR
Cristal
1 year ago
D: D) Utilize different MTU values for each campus network segment. Level 2 backbone routers must utilize a larger MTU size of 9216.
JI
Jina
1 year ago
C: E) Assign a unique IS-IS NET value for each campus, and configure internal campus routers with Level 1 routing.
RE
Rebeca
1 year ago
B: B) Designate two IS-IS routers from each campus to act as Level 1/Level 2 backbone routers at the edge of each campus network.
JO
Jonell
1 year ago
A: A) Designate two IS-IS routers as BDR routers at the edge of each campus, and configure one BDR for all Level 1 routers and one BDR for all Level 2 routers.
AS
Ashanti
1 year ago
D is an interesting option, but I'm not convinced that different MTU values are the way to go here. Seems a bit of a hack, if you ask me.
EV
Evelynn
1 year ago
E seems like the way to go. Assigning a unique IS-IS NET value for each campus and configuring internal routers with Level 1 routing should do the trick.
GE
Georgeanna
1 year ago
A: It's important to make sure each campus has its own identity in the routing domain.
JU
Julie
1 year ago
B: Definitely, configuring internal routers with Level 1 routing will help keep the networks separate.
FR
Francis
1 year ago
A: I agree, assigning a unique IS-IS NET value for each campus is key for segregation.
LA
Lavonne
1 year ago
I'm not sure about option C. Wouldn't using the same IS-IS NET value for each campus cause routing issues and prevent proper segregation?
BR
Brandon
1 year ago
A: Definitely, assigning unique values will help prevent any routing conflicts between the interconnected campus networks.
JE
Jenifer
1 year ago
B: I agree, using a unique IS-IS NET value for each campus would be a better approach to ensure proper segregation.
LA
Lazaro
1 year ago
A: Option C could potentially cause routing issues if the same IS-IS NET value is used for each campus.
CO
Coletta
2 years ago
Option B looks good to me. Having two Level 1/Level 2 backbone routers at the edge of each campus network should segregate the routing domains nicely.
MA
Margarett
1 year ago
D: Agreed, it's important to have a clear hierarchy in place for routing.
RY
Ryan
1 year ago
C: Designating those routers will definitely help with the segregation.
RO
Ronna
1 year ago
B: Yeah, having two Level 1/Level 2 backbone routers at the edge of each campus network is a smart move.
MA
Mabelle
1 year ago
A: I think option B is a good choice. It helps segregate the routing domains.
CA
Candra
2 years ago
But shouldn't we also assign a unique IS-IS NET value for each campus to ensure proper segregation?
EL
Elden
2 years ago
I agree with Willow. That way we can have one BDR for all Level 1 routers and one BDR for all Level 2 routers.
WI
Willow
2 years ago
I think we should designate two IS-IS routers as BDR routers at the edge of each campus.