Discuss Cisco 300-620 Exam Topic 3 Question 83

Refer to the exhibit.

Refer to the exhibit. A Cisco ACI environment hosts two e-commerce applications. The default contract from a common tenant between different application tiers is used, and the applications work as expected. The customer wants to move to more specific contracts to prevent unwanted traffic between EPGs. A network administrator creates the app-to-db contract to meet this objective for the application and database tiers. The application EPGs must communicate only with their respective database EPGs. How should this contract be configured to meet this requirement?

ASet the app-to-db scope to Global.

BSet the app-to-db scope to Application Profile.

CImplement the app-to-db scope as VRF.

DImplement the app-to-db as a Taboo contract.

Suggested Answer: C

in order to provide connectivity from EPGs from a specific site to networks reachable through a remote site L3OUT, a new stretched external EPG must be added to the existing L3OUT.

Get Premium 300-620 Questions as Interactive Web-Based Practice Test or PDF Real Exam Format Detailed Explanations Instant Access Get Your Practice Test

32 comments · newest first

Roosevelt 11 months ago

Implementing as VRF? Not sure that fits the requirement.

Bulah 11 months ago

I’m surprised they didn’t consider a Taboo contract!

Shantay 11 months ago

Wait, why would anyone choose option A? Seems off.

Horace 11 months ago

Totally agree, application profile makes sense here!

Kati 12 months ago

I think option B is the way to go.

Janella 12 months ago

I vaguely recall something about Taboo contracts, but I’m not confident if that applies to this situation.

Fernanda 1 year ago

I practiced a similar question where the scope was set to Global, but I don't think that would limit traffic as needed here.

Shakira 1 year ago

I think setting the scope to Application Profile makes sense since it allows for more specific control between the app and database EPGs, right?

Ocie 1 year ago

I remember studying the different scopes for contracts, but I'm not entirely sure which one is best for this scenario.

Viva 1 year ago

This seems straightforward. The scope needs to be set to Application Profile to meet the requirement of restricting communication between the application and database tiers.

Eric 1 year ago

I've seen questions like this before. I believe the correct answer is to set the app-to-db scope to Application Profile, as that will limit the communication to just the intended EPGs.

Gladys 1 year ago

Okay, the key here is to ensure the application EPGs can only communicate with their respective database EPGs. I think setting the app-to-db scope to Application Profile might be the way to go.

Lindy 1 year ago

Hmm, I'm a bit confused by the different contract scope options. I'll need to make sure I understand the differences between them before selecting an answer.

Shannan 1 year ago

This looks like a tricky one. I'll need to carefully review the options and think through the implications of each contract scope setting.

Stephaine 1 year ago

Wait, what's the difference between "general employee information" and the other options? I'm a bit confused on that one.

Carman 2 years ago

Option C is a bit overkill for this scenario. Using a VRF would be like building a whole new highway system just to keep the cars in their lanes.

Nan 1 year ago

↳ replying to Carman

Exactly, using a Taboo contract would be the most appropriate choice here.

Laurel 1 year ago

↳ replying to Carman

Setting the scope to Global might make it too broad, we need something more specific.

Melodie 1 year ago

↳ replying to Carman

I think setting the scope to Application Profile would be a better option.

Lavina 1 year ago

↳ replying to Carman

Agreed, using a VRF seems like too much for this situation.

Felice 2 years ago

Haha, I'd love to see the network admin try to implement the app-to-db contract as a Taboo contract. That would be like putting a 'Do Not Enter' sign on a two-way street!

Kristel 2 years ago

I agree, B is the way to go. Scoping the contract to the Application Profile makes the most sense for this use case.

Shawnta 1 year ago

↳ replying to Kristel

User 2: I agree, scoping the contract to the Application Profile is the way to go.

Britt 1 year ago

↳ replying to Kristel

User 1: I think B is the best option here.

Alonzo 2 years ago

I'm not sure, but I think setting the scope to VRF could also work to meet the requirement.

Aron 2 years ago

I agree with Rebecka. Setting the scope to Application Profile will ensure that the application EPGs only communicate with their respective database EPGs.

Arthur 2 years ago

The correct answer is B. Setting the app-to-db contract scope to the Application Profile will restrict communication between the application and database EPGs within that profile, preventing unwanted traffic between tiers.

Cherry 1 year ago

↳ replying to Arthur

Exactly, it will prevent unwanted traffic between tiers within that profile.

Benton 1 year ago

↳ replying to Arthur

That makes sense, setting the scope to the Application Profile would restrict communication between the application and database EPGs.

Junita 1 year ago

↳ replying to Arthur

No, I believe the correct answer is B) Set the app-to-db scope to Application Profile.

Wilda 1 year ago

↳ replying to Arthur

I think the correct answer is A) Set the app-to-db scope to Global.

Rebecka 2 years ago

I think the contract should be configured with a scope of Application Profile.

Cisco 300-620 Exam - Topic 3 Question 83 Discussion