Cisco 400-007 Exam - Topic 9 Question 36 Discussion

Actual exam question for Cisco's 400-007 exam

Question #: 36
Topic #: 9

Network changes because of mergers, acquisitions, and divestment can be very disruptive to the network if not carried out carefully. When an organization sells parts of its business, it must detach the affected parts of the network from the rest of the network. Which network design approach is appropriate to minimize the impact and risks as the divested parts of the network are detached?

Aredundant design

Bmodular design

Cless complex design

Drouted access design

Show Suggested Answer

Suggested Answer: B

by Lorrie at Apr 11, 2024, 12:42 PM

Limited Time Offer

25%

Off

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

Contribute your Thoughts:

Submit Cancel

Elly

9 months ago

Routed access design seems too complicated for divestments.

upvoted 0 times

...

Catrice

9 months ago

Redundant design could lead to unnecessary costs, though.

upvoted 0 times

...

Marsha

10 months ago

Wait, can we really just detach parts without issues? Sounds risky!

upvoted 0 times

...

Karan

10 months ago

I disagree, less complex design might be better.

upvoted 0 times

...

Basilia

10 months ago

Modular design is definitely the way to go for this.

upvoted 0 times

...

Tasia

10 months ago

Routed access design sounds familiar, but I can't recall if it was specifically for situations like divestment. I might be leaning towards modular design too.

upvoted 0 times

...

Janet

11 months ago

I feel like we practiced a question similar to this, and modular design was highlighted as a good approach for minimizing disruptions.

upvoted 0 times

...

Julian

11 months ago

I'm not entirely sure, but I think less complex design might be the right choice since it could reduce the risk during the detachment process.

upvoted 0 times

...

Taryn

11 months ago

I remember discussing modular design in class, and it seems like it could help isolate the divested parts effectively.

upvoted 0 times

...

Zona

11 months ago

Less complex design might be the simplest approach, but I'm not sure if that would be enough to handle the challenges of a major divestment. I'll have to think this through carefully.

upvoted 0 times

...

Leila

11 months ago

I'm pretty confident that redundant design is the right answer. That will help ensure the core network stays up and running even as parts are detached.

upvoted 0 times

...

Sharika

11 months ago

Modular design seems like the way to go here. It should allow the divested parts to be detached more cleanly from the rest of the network.

upvoted 0 times

...

Shelba

11 months ago

This seems like a tricky one. I'll need to think through the different network design approaches and how they could impact the network during a divestment.

upvoted 0 times

...

Winifred

11 months ago

Hmm, I'm a bit confused on the differences between the options. I'll need to review my notes on network design approaches to figure out which one is best for minimizing disruption.

upvoted 0 times

...

Allene

11 months ago

Okay, I think I've got a strategy here. The key is to find the solution that can handle the high volume of images and dynamic resizing with the least amount of overhead for the company. I'm leaning towards the Lambda@Edge function with an external image management library.

upvoted 0 times

...

Maryln

11 months ago

This seems like a straightforward licensing question, but I want to make sure I understand the details correctly before answering.

upvoted 0 times

...

Joaquin

11 months ago

I'm feeling pretty confident about this one. The information provided seems straightforward, so I just need to plug the numbers into the right formulas. I'll double-check my work, but I think I can nail this question.

upvoted 0 times

...

Mira

11 months ago

Okay, let me see. I know buffer overflows happen when a program tries to write more data to a buffer than it can hold. But the most common cause? I'm not totally sure, maybe it's related to permissions or file access?

upvoted 0 times

...

Rhea

11 months ago

Okay, let's think this through step-by-step. The key is to find the profile that can be removed or changed to reduce CPU load without increasing server-side bandwidth.

upvoted 0 times

...

Earnestine

2 years ago

But wouldn't redundant design provide more resilience during the detachment process?

upvoted 0 times

...

Lindsey

2 years ago

I believe a less complex design would be better in this scenario, to avoid complications during divestment.

upvoted 0 times

...

Jestine

2 years ago

I agree, modular design allows for easier detachment of network components.

upvoted 0 times

...

Millie

2 years ago

I think the appropriate network design approach to minimize impact during divestment is modular design.

upvoted 0 times

...

Anjelica

2 years ago

That makes sense, A less complex design would definitely make the process smoother and less prone to errors.

upvoted 0 times

...

Roxanne

2 years ago

I believe a less complex design would also be a good choice. Simplifying the network would reduce the risks of disruption during divestment.

upvoted 0 times

...

Taryn

2 years ago

I agree with Modular design allows for detached parts of the network to be easily separated without disrupting the rest.

upvoted 0 times

...

Anjelica

2 years ago

I think the appropriate network design approach to minimize the impact of network changes due to divestment is modular design.

upvoted 0 times

...

Sunny

2 years ago

I was also thinking about the redundant design option, but I'm not sure that would be the best fit here. Redundancy is great for maintaining availability, but it might not be the most efficient approach when you're actively trying to detach parts of the network.

upvoted 0 times

...

Jesse

2 years ago

Absolutely, modular design is the clear winner in this scenario. It's the most flexible and scalable approach to handle these types of network changes.

upvoted 0 times

...

Natalie

2 years ago

Yeah, the modular design makes sense. It provides a clear separation between the parts of the network that are being divested and the rest of the organization's network. This way, the changes can be implemented with minimal disruption.

upvoted 0 times

...

Eva

2 years ago

Haha, yeah! Modular design is the 'Lego' of network architecture. Very fitting analogy there.

upvoted 0 times

...

Glory

2 years ago

Exactly, Michael! And the 'routed access design' option doesn't seem to be directly relevant to the task of detaching network segments. That's more about managing access controls, not the actual network architecture.

upvoted 0 times

...

Tegan

2 years ago

I agree, modular design is the way to go. It's like building with Lego blocks - you can remove one piece without the whole thing falling apart.

upvoted 0 times

Oliva

2 years ago

C) less complex design

upvoted 0 times

...

Elinore

2 years ago

B) modular design

upvoted 0 times

...

Kate

2 years ago

A) redundant design

upvoted 0 times

...

Vallie

2 years ago

Hmm, this question seems to be testing our understanding of network design approaches. The key here is to minimize the impact and risks when parts of the network are being detached due to a divestment.

upvoted 0 times

...

Tasia

2 years ago

Modular design makes a lot of sense to me. It allows you to easily detach the affected parts of the network without impacting the rest of the infrastructure.

upvoted 0 times

...

Jacqueline

2 years ago

Definitely, you need to have a solid plan in place to minimize the disruption. I'm leaning towards option B) modular design as the best approach here.

upvoted 0 times

...