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 350-501 Exam - Topic 3 Question 74 Discussion

Refer to the exhibit.The CE router is peering with both PE routers and advertising a public prefix to the internet. Routing to and from this prefix will be asymmetric under certain network conditions, but packets must not be discarded. Which configuration must an engineer apply to the two PE routers so that they validate reverse packet forwarding for packets entering their Gi2 interfaces and drop traffic from the RFC1918 space?
D) ip verify unicast source reachable-via any
A) ip verify unicast source reachable-via rx allow-default
B) interface GigabitEthernet 2 ip verify unicast source reachable-via rx
C) ip verify unicast source reachable-via any allow-default interface GigabitEthernet 2

Cisco 350-501 Exam - Topic 3 Question 74 Discussion

Actual exam question for Cisco's 350-501 exam
Question #: 74
Topic #: 3
[All 350-501 Questions]

Refer to the exhibit.

The CE router is peering with both PE routers and advertising a public prefix to the internet. Routing to and from this prefix will be asymmetric under certain network conditions, but packets must not be discarded. Which configuration must an engineer apply to the two PE routers so that they validate reverse packet forwarding for packets entering their Gi2 interfaces and drop traffic from the RFC1918 space?

Show Suggested Answer Hide Answer
Suggested Answer: D

by Valentin at Sep 03, 2023, 06:05 AM

Limited Time Offer

25%

Off

Get Premium 350-501 Questions as Interactive Web-Based Practice Test or PDF

Contribute your Thoughts:

0/2000 characters
Submit Cancel
Laurena
9 months ago
Just to clarify, is asymmetric routing really a concern here?
upvoted 0 times
...
Tresa
10 months ago
I think D could work too, but not sure if it covers all cases.
upvoted 0 times
...
Maile
10 months ago
Wait, can we really drop RFC1918 traffic with just that config?
upvoted 0 times
...
Cheryl
10 months ago
I agree, B is definitely the best fit here.
upvoted 0 times
...
Leota
10 months ago
Option B seems like the right choice for this scenario.
upvoted 0 times
...
Stefan
11 months ago
I’m leaning towards option A because it allows default, but I’m a bit confused about how that interacts with the RFC1918 filtering.
upvoted 0 times
...
Lyda
11 months ago
I practiced a similar question where we had to configure RPF checks, and I feel like option D might be the best choice since it doesn't specify an interface.
upvoted 0 times
...
Paola
11 months ago
I think option B sounds familiar because it mentions the interface directly, but I can't recall if it's the right one for this scenario.
upvoted 0 times
...
Carman
11 months ago
I remember we discussed asymmetric routing in class, but I'm not sure which command specifically drops RFC1918 traffic.
upvoted 0 times
...
Nikita
11 months ago
This seems straightforward. The question is asking for the configuration to validate reverse packet forwarding, so I think option B is the way to go.
upvoted 0 times
...
Tomoko
11 months ago
I'm a bit confused by the different configuration options. I'll need to make sure I understand the differences between them before selecting an answer.
upvoted 0 times
...
Golda
11 months ago
Okay, the key seems to be applying the right configuration to the PE routers' Gi2 interfaces to handle the public prefix and drop RFC1918 traffic. I'll review the options closely.
upvoted 0 times
...
Josue
11 months ago
Hmm, the question mentions asymmetric routing and validating reverse packet forwarding. I think I'll need to focus on the configuration options that deal with that.
upvoted 0 times
...
Terrilyn
11 months ago
This looks like a tricky routing question. I'll need to carefully read through the details and think through the requirements.
upvoted 0 times
...
Lelia
11 months ago
This is a good opportunity to apply my knowledge of source-based verification and interface-level configurations. I'll work through this step-by-step.
upvoted 0 times
...
Gracie
11 months ago
I'm feeling pretty confident about this one. The configuration requirements seem straightforward, and I know the relevant IOS commands to use.
upvoted 0 times
...
Chaya
11 months ago
Okay, the key seems to be validating reverse packet forwarding and dropping RFC1918 traffic. I think I have a strategy to approach this.
upvoted 0 times
...
Mariko
11 months ago
Hmm, I'm a bit confused by the asymmetric routing condition. I'll have to make sure I understand that part before trying to solve this.
upvoted 0 times
...
Oretha
11 months ago
This looks like a tricky routing question. I'll need to carefully read through the details and think through the requirements.
upvoted 0 times
...
Solange
11 months ago
This seems like a tricky question. I'll need to think carefully about the components of the HR Impact Model and how they work together.
upvoted 0 times
...
Denny
11 months ago
I'm not entirely sure about this one. I'll need to eliminate the options that don't seem relevant and then make an educated guess based on my understanding of Kerberos.
upvoted 0 times
...
Brock
11 months ago
Hmm, I'm not entirely sure about the installation methods for IdeaHub. I'll need to think this through carefully and try to eliminate any options that don't seem relevant.
upvoted 0 times
...
Aja
11 months ago
This looks like a pretty straightforward question. I'd start by thinking about which services in the architecture are responsible for handling HTTP requests and responses. The CloudFront distribution and ALB are good places to check for status codes.
upvoted 0 times
...

Save Cancel