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 400-007 Exam - Topic 2 Question 25 Discussion

Company XYZ is designing the IS-IS deployment strategy for their multiarea IS-IS domain. They want IS-IS neighbour relationships to be minimized on each network segment and want to optimize the size of the IS-IS LSDB on each router. Which can design can be used to meet these requirements?
A) Design all routers as Level 2 routers. Set the links between the routers as Level 1 with the area
B) Design the network so that the routers connecting to other areas are Level 2 routers and internal routers are Level 1
C) Design the network so that all routers are Level 1 routers
D) Design the network so that the routers connecting to other areas are Level 1/Level 2 routers and internal routers are Level 1

Cisco 400-007 Exam - Topic 2 Question 25 Discussion

Actual exam question for Cisco's 400-007 exam
Question #: 25
Topic #: 2
[All 400-007 Questions]

Company XYZ is designing the IS-IS deployment strategy for their multiarea IS-IS domain. They want IS-IS neighbour relationships to be minimized on each network segment and want to optimize the size of the IS-IS LSDB on each router. Which can design can be used to meet these requirements?

Show Suggested Answer Hide Answer
Suggested Answer: A

by Kiley at Aug 07, 2023, 08:44 AM

Limited Time Offer

25%

Off

Get Premium 400-007 Questions as Interactive Web-Based Practice Test or PDF

Contribute your Thoughts:

0/2000 characters
Submit Cancel
James
9 months ago
Level 2 routers connecting to other areas makes sense for scalability.
upvoted 0 times
...
Earnestine
10 months ago
Wait, can all routers really be Level 1? Sounds risky.
upvoted 0 times
...
Laticia
10 months ago
All Level 1 routers? That's a bold move!
upvoted 0 times
...
Lenny
10 months ago
I disagree, I think option D could work too.
upvoted 0 times
...
Andree
10 months ago
Option B is the best choice for minimizing neighbor relationships.
upvoted 0 times
...
Arlyne
11 months ago
I’m leaning towards A, but I recall that having all routers as Level 2 might not optimize the LSDB as effectively as having a mix of levels.
upvoted 0 times
...
Lettie
11 months ago
I practiced a similar question where the focus was on minimizing neighbor relationships. I feel like D could be a good option too, but I’m not confident.
upvoted 0 times
...
Kenneth
11 months ago
I think the answer might be B, but I'm not entirely sure. It seems like having Level 2 routers for inter-area connections makes sense for scalability.
upvoted 0 times
...
Phuong
11 months ago
I remember studying that Level 1 routers only maintain LSDBs for their area, which could help minimize the database size.
upvoted 0 times
...
Audra
11 months ago
Alright, let's see here. Forcing change tracking, that's the first step. Then the password '789' to stop it. I think I can handle this, just need to make sure I get the settings right.
upvoted 0 times
...
Huey
11 months ago
This seems like a tricky one. I'll need to think through the permissions and data handling options carefully.
upvoted 0 times
...
Lashaunda
1 year ago
I'm going with Option B, but I have to say, the thought of designing a network with all Level 1 routers sounds like a recipe for a giant, tangled mess. Not my cup of tea!
upvoted 0 times
...
Veronika
1 year ago
Option B all the way! It's the only one that really addresses the requirements. The other options seem like they'd just create more headaches.
upvoted 0 times
Luisa
1 year ago
Definitely, option B is the most efficient way to meet the requirements. It's all about optimizing the network structure.
upvoted 0 times
...
Jesus
1 year ago
Yeah, option B makes the most sense in this scenario. It's important to design the network carefully.
upvoted 0 times
...
Stephen
1 year ago
I agree, option B seems like the best choice for minimizing neighbor relationships and optimizing LSDB size.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Alberta
1 year ago
Hmm, this is a tough one. I'm leaning towards Option B, but I can't help but wonder if there's a catch. These certification exams love to trick you!
upvoted 0 times
Mose
1 year ago
User1: Exactly, and it could optimize the LSDB size on each router. Let's go with Option B.
upvoted 0 times
...
Bo
1 year ago
User2: Yeah, that could help minimize the number of neighbor relationships.
upvoted 0 times
...
Bo
1 year ago
User1: Yeah, let's go with Option B and hope there are no tricky twists in the exam.
upvoted 0 times
...
Dominic
1 year ago
User1: I think Option B makes sense. It separates the routers based on their connections.
upvoted 0 times
...
Olive
1 year ago
User2: I agree, it seems like the most efficient design for minimizing IS-IS neighbor relationships.
upvoted 0 times
...
Beula
1 year ago
User1: I think Option B is the way to go. It makes sense to have Level 2 routers connecting to other areas.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Luis
1 year ago
I'm not sure, this question is a bit tricky. Option D looks interesting, but I'll have to think it through a bit more.
upvoted 0 times
...
Carlee
1 year ago
Option B seems like the way to go. Minimizing neighbor relationships and optimizing the LSDB size is key, and separating the Level 2 and Level 1 routers sounds like the perfect solution.
upvoted 0 times
Charlene
1 year ago
Designing the network in this way will help Company XYZ achieve their objectives effectively.
upvoted 0 times
...
Tijuana
1 year ago
It's important to minimize neighbor relationships and optimize the LSDB size for efficient network operation.
upvoted 0 times
...
Rossana
1 year ago
By separating the routers connecting to other areas as Level 2 and internal routers as Level 1, they can achieve their goals.
upvoted 0 times
...
Jettie
1 year ago
I agree, option B seems like the best choice for Company XYZ's IS-IS deployment strategy.
upvoted 0 times
...
Melvin
1 year ago
That makes sense, so option B is the best choice for Company XYZ's IS-IS deployment strategy.
upvoted 0 times
...
Brent
1 year ago
True, but having Level 2 routers for connections to other areas can help optimize the LSDB size.
upvoted 0 times
...
Myrtie
1 year ago
But wouldn't having all routers as Level 1 routers also minimize neighbor relationships?
upvoted 0 times
...
Bernardine
1 year ago
I agree, separating the routers like that would definitely help achieve the goal.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Lizette
1 year ago
I prefer option D, having a mix of Level 1/Level 2 routers provides flexibility.
upvoted 0 times
...
Thersa
1 year ago
I agree with Elvera, having Level 2 routers connecting to other areas makes sense.
upvoted 0 times
...
Elvera
1 year ago
I think option B is the best choice.
upvoted 0 times
...

Save Cancel