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 300-815 Exam - Topic 8 Question 52 Discussion

Refer to the exhibit. A standard local route group is configured for long-distance calls. Calls from building A succeed, but calls from building B fail. On the system. Each building has is own device pool. The DNA tool is used to test the configuration. How is this issue resolved?
D) Add a local route group on the device pool configuration.
A) Change the partition of the route pattern
B) Add a sip trunk inside route group Standard Local Route Group.
C) Modify the route pattern to add a prefix of 91

Cisco 300-815 Exam - Topic 8 Question 52 Discussion

Actual exam question for Cisco's 300-815 exam
Question #: 52
Topic #: 8
[All 300-815 Questions]

Refer to the exhibit. A standard local route group is configured for long-distance calls. Calls from building A succeed, but calls from building B fail. On the system. Each building has is own device pool. The DNA tool is used to test the configuration. How is this issue resolved?

Show Suggested Answer Hide Answer
Suggested Answer: D

by Viola at May 29, 2022, 09:04 PM

Limited Time Offer

25%

Off

Get Premium 300-815 Questions as Interactive Web-Based Practice Test or PDF

Contribute your Thoughts:

0/2000 characters
Submit Cancel
Lazaro
10 months ago
I agree with Alease, partition changes could fix this.
upvoted 0 times
...
Demetra
10 months ago
Definitely not option C, that prefix won't help here.
upvoted 0 times
...
Carri
10 months ago
Wait, why would calls from building A work but not B? That's odd.
upvoted 0 times
...
Omer
11 months ago
I think adding a local route group (option D) makes more sense.
upvoted 0 times
...
Alease
11 months ago
Sounds like a partition issue, maybe option A?
upvoted 0 times
...
Jennifer
11 months ago
Adding a SIP trunk seems like it could help, but I can't recall if that's the best approach for this scenario. Option B is a bit unclear to me.
upvoted 0 times
...
Nan
11 months ago
I think we practiced a similar question where adding a local route group helped with call failures, so D might be worth considering.
upvoted 0 times
...
Leoma
11 months ago
I remember something about partitions affecting call routing, so maybe option A could be the right choice?
upvoted 0 times
...
Rolande
11 months ago
I'm not entirely sure, but I feel like modifying the route pattern could be a solution too. Option C sounds familiar.
upvoted 0 times
...
Emogene
11 months ago
Ah, I think I've got it! Based on the options, "Result" must be the maximum value that the SeekBar can be moved to. That would make sense in the context of the code and the image.
upvoted 0 times
...

Save Cancel