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
Mail Us support@pass4success.com
Location US
Mob_nav_barsMENU

Cisco 300-620 Exam - Topic 5 Question 108 Discussion

An engineer deploys a two-pod Cisco ACI Multi-Pod environment. Why should no more than two Cisco APIC controllers be deployed in the same pod?
B) to avoid losing all replicas of a shard if a pod fails
A) to enable equal capacity to scale in each pod
C) to avoid hair-pinning traffic that is destined for the primary APIC controller between pods
D) to ensure that all nodes in all pods have local access to a controller

Cisco 300-620 Exam - Topic 5 Question 108 Discussion

Actual exam question for Cisco's 300-620 exam
Question #: 108
Topic #: 5
[All 300-620 Questions]

An engineer deploys a two-pod Cisco ACI Multi-Pod environment. Why should no more than two Cisco APIC controllers be deployed in the same pod?

Show Suggested Answer Hide Answer
Suggested Answer: B

In a two-pod Cisco ACI Multi-Pod environment, it is recommended to deploy no more than two Cisco APIC controllers in the same pod to avoid losing all replicas of a shard if a pod fails. The APIC cluster is a distributed system where each APIC contains a replica of the configuration database, referred to as a shard. If all replicas of a shard were located in the same pod and that pod were to fail, it would result in the loss of the shard and potentially impact the entire fabric's operation.By distributing the APIC controllers across pods, the risk of losing all replicas due to a single point of failure is mitigated, enhancing the overall resiliency of the system1.


ACI Multi-Pod White Paper - Cisco1

by Luisa at Mar 04, 2026, 07:34 PM

Limited Time Offer

25%

Off

Get Premium 300-620 Questions as Interactive Web-Based Practice Test or PDF

Contribute your Thoughts:

0/2000 characters
Submit Cancel
Alysa
3 days ago
D is also valid. Local access is crucial for performance.
upvoted 0 times
...
Anisha
8 days ago
C seems right too. Avoiding hair-pinning is important.
upvoted 0 times
...
Whitley
13 days ago
I agree, B makes sense. Pod failure is critical.
upvoted 0 times
...
Shenika
19 days ago
I think it's B. Losing all replicas is a big risk.
upvoted 0 times
...
Deeann
24 days ago
D is important too, local access is crucial for performance.
upvoted 0 times
...
Felicitas
29 days ago
C is also a good point. Hair-pinning can cause delays.
upvoted 0 times
...
Leonora
1 month ago
I agree, B makes sense. Pod failure could be catastrophic.
upvoted 0 times
...
Lynelle
1 month ago
I think it's B. Losing all replicas is a big risk.
upvoted 0 times
...
Antione
1 month ago
D seems right too. Local access is crucial for performance.
upvoted 0 times
...
Emilio
2 months ago
But C is also important. Traffic issues can cause delays.
upvoted 0 times
...
Gerald
2 months ago
I agree, B makes sense. Pod failure is serious.
upvoted 0 times
...
Mohammad
2 months ago
I think it's B. Losing all replicas is a big risk.
upvoted 0 times
...
Nathan
2 months ago
I thought having more controllers would be better for redundancy?
upvoted 0 times
...
Kathrine
2 months ago
B is crucial—losing all replicas would be a disaster!
upvoted 0 times
...
Haydee
4 months ago
Wait, why can't we have more than two APICs? Seems odd.
upvoted 0 times
...
Herminia
4 months ago
Totally agree, option C makes the most sense.
upvoted 0 times
...
Alaine
4 months ago
It's all about avoiding traffic issues between pods!
upvoted 0 times
...
Bulah
4 months ago
I feel like D is also important for local access, though.
upvoted 0 times
...
Willis
5 months ago
C is key to keeping traffic efficient, no doubt!
upvoted 0 times
...
Stephanie
5 months ago
Wait, I thought you could have more than two APICs in a pod?
upvoted 0 times
...
Earnestine
5 months ago
Totally agree, option B makes the most sense.
upvoted 0 times
...
Bulah
5 months ago
It's all about avoiding single points of failure!
upvoted 0 times
...
Belen
5 months ago
I practiced a similar question, and I think it was about scaling capacity, but that doesn't seem quite right for this scenario.
upvoted 0 times
...
Tamra
5 months ago
I feel like the answer has to do with ensuring local access to a controller for all nodes, but I can't recall the exact details.
upvoted 0 times
...
Shawna
6 months ago
I remember something about traffic management, so maybe it's to avoid hair-pinning traffic between pods?
upvoted 0 times
...
Carma
6 months ago
I think it might be related to avoiding losing all replicas of a shard if a pod fails, but I'm not entirely sure.
upvoted 0 times
...

Save Cancel