Cisco 300-420 Exam - Topic 8 Question 109 Discussion

Actual exam question for Cisco's 300-420 exam

Question #: 109
Topic #: 8

An architect is designing a network solution for a customer The network is IPv6-only with 1000 hosts. The design must provide external access to up to 10 concurrent IPv6 hosts to allow communication with legacy IPv4 devices on an adjacent network. The customer set aside 10 IPv4 addresses to allow for one-to-one communication between hosts. Which solution must the architect select?

Astateful NAT64

Bstatic NAT-PT

Cdynamic NPTv6

Ddynamic NAT-PT

Show Suggested Answer

Suggested Answer: A

by Lili at Mar 22, 2025, 02:31 PM

Limited Time Offer

25%

Off

Get Premium 300-420 Questions as Interactive Web-Based Practice Test or PDF

Contribute your Thoughts:

Submit Cancel

Markus

8 months ago

Surprised they need 10 concurrent IPv6 hosts for just 10 IPv4 addresses!

upvoted 0 times

...

Jodi

9 months ago

I thought dynamic NAT-PT was the best choice here?

upvoted 0 times

...

Cristal

9 months ago

Wait, isn't static NAT-PT outdated?

upvoted 0 times

...

Kathrine

9 months ago

Totally agree, NAT64 is the way to handle that!

upvoted 0 times

...

Twana

9 months ago

Gotta go with stateful NAT64 for this one.

upvoted 0 times

...

Laurel

9 months ago

I feel like dynamic NAT-PT could work, but I’m not confident it’s the best fit for IPv6-only networks.

upvoted 0 times

...

Kirk

10 months ago

Dynamic NPTv6 sounds familiar, but I can't recall if it supports the external access needed for those 10 concurrent hosts.

upvoted 0 times

...

Nobuko

10 months ago

I think static NAT-PT might be the answer since it allows for one-to-one mapping, but I need to double-check the requirements.

upvoted 0 times

...

Bobbye

10 months ago

I remember studying NAT64, but I'm not entirely sure if it's the right choice for this scenario.

upvoted 0 times

...

Remedios

10 months ago

Stateful NAT64 is the way to go. It allows the IPv6 hosts to communicate with the IPv4 devices while efficiently translating the addresses.

upvoted 0 times

...

Alise

11 months ago

I'm not too familiar with some of these IPv6 transition technologies. I'll need to make sure I understand the differences between NAT-PT, NPTv6, and NAT64 before deciding.

upvoted 0 times

...

Laurena

11 months ago

Okay, I've got this. The key is providing external access to the IPv6 hosts while allowing communication with the legacy IPv4 devices. Stateful NAT64 seems like the right choice here.

upvoted 0 times

...

Joesph

11 months ago

Hmm, I'm a bit confused by the IPv4 and IPv6 requirements. I'll need to review my notes on transitioning between the two protocols.

upvoted 0 times

...

German

11 months ago

This looks like a tricky one. I'll need to think through the requirements carefully to determine the best solution.

upvoted 0 times

...

Genevive

1 year ago

You know, if I were the architect, I'd be tempted to suggest a carrier-grade NAT solution just to see the customer's reaction. But that's probably not the best idea for this scenario.

upvoted 0 times

Judy

1 year ago

C) dynamic NPTv6

upvoted 0 times

...

Flo

1 year ago

A) stateful NAT64

upvoted 0 times

...

Rutha

1 year ago

I see your point, Rex, but I still think stateful NAT64 is the most suitable option for this specific requirement.

upvoted 0 times

...

Shala

1 year ago

Ha! I bet the architect is wishing they had a crystal ball to see the future network needs. Better play it safe and go with the classic stateful NAT64.

upvoted 0 times

Justine

1 year ago

A) stateful NAT64

upvoted 0 times

...

Gilberto

1 year ago

I think dynamic NPTv6 could also work well in this situation.

upvoted 0 times

...

Tamra

1 year ago

C) dynamic NPTv6

upvoted 0 times

...

Queen

1 year ago

I agree, stateful NAT64 seems like the safest bet for this scenario.

upvoted 0 times

...

Juliana

1 year ago

A) stateful NAT64

upvoted 0 times

...

Mickie

1 year ago

I don't know, guys. Dynamic NAT-PT could give the customer more flexibility if they need to expand the network in the future. But I'm not sure if it's the best fit for this specific requirement.

upvoted 0 times

Latanya

1 year ago

I agree, dynamic NAT-PT could offer more flexibility for future network expansion.

upvoted 0 times

...

Devorah

1 year ago

C) dynamic NPTv6 might be a better choice to allow communication with legacy IPv4 devices.

upvoted 0 times

...

Marci

1 year ago

A) stateful NAT64 could be a good option for providing external access to IPv4 hosts.

upvoted 0 times

...

Rex

1 year ago

I believe dynamic NPTv6 could also work, as it allows for prefix translation without changing the addresses.

upvoted 0 times

...

Jill

1 year ago

I agree with Magnolia, stateful NAT64 seems like the best solution for this scenario.

upvoted 0 times

...

Magnolia

1 year ago

I think the architect should select stateful NAT64.

upvoted 0 times

...

Dana

1 year ago

Dynamic NPTv6 could work too, but it might be overkill for this scenario. The customer wants a simple one-to-one mapping, so static NAT-PT might be the most efficient choice.

upvoted 0 times

...

Hermila

1 year ago

Hmm, I think option A is the way to go. Stateful NAT64 seems like the most straightforward solution to connect the IPv6 hosts with the legacy IPv4 devices.

upvoted 0 times

Audra

1 year ago

Yes, stateful NAT64 will ensure smooth communication between the two networks.

upvoted 0 times

...

Heike

1 year ago

I agree, it provides a seamless way to connect the IPv6 hosts with the legacy IPv4 devices.

upvoted 0 times

...

Eun

1 year ago

A) stateful NAT64 is definitely the best choice for this scenario.

upvoted 0 times

...