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

Cisco Exam 300-510 Topic 2 Question 83 Discussion

Actual exam question for Cisco's 300-510 exam
Question #: 83
Topic #: 2
[All 300-510 Questions]

The ISP_A network is configured with PIMv2 with sparse mode. The engineering team at ISP_A must implement multicast support following RFC 5059 in the network. The RP priority will be 0, and the solution must require limited supervision from the operations team. Which action must the team take to meet the requirements?

Show Suggested Answer Hide Answer
Suggested Answer: C

Contribute your Thoughts:

Delisa
3 months ago
What about implementing bootstrap router in the network core? That could also meet the requirements.
upvoted 0 times
...
Lynda
4 months ago
I believe implementing Auto-RP on the candidate RP and the mapping agent only would require limited supervision from the operations team.
upvoted 0 times
...
Kindra
4 months ago
But wouldn't it be more efficient to implement Static RP across all routers in the network?
upvoted 0 times
...
Gregg
5 months ago
I think we should implement Anycast-RP on edge routers only.
upvoted 0 times
...
Daniela
5 months ago
But won't using Anycast-RP on edge routers only require more supervision from the operations team?
upvoted 0 times
...
Margurite
5 months ago
I'm leaning towards option D and implementing Anycast-RP on edge routers only. It seems like a simpler solution.
upvoted 0 times
...
Matthew
5 months ago
I disagree, I believe we should choose option B and implement Static RP across all routers in the network.
upvoted 0 times
...
Daniela
5 months ago
I think we should go with option A and implement Auto-RP on the candidate RP and the mapping agent only.
upvoted 0 times
...
Isidra
6 months ago
You know, I was actually thinking about option A - implementing Auto-RP on the candidate RP and the mapping agent. That way, we can have a dynamic RP selection process, and the ops team only needs to configure the candidate RP and mapping agent. Seems like the best balance of features and simplicity to me.
upvoted 0 times
...
Beth
6 months ago
Haha, yeah, that would be a real headache for the ops team. Maybe they could just set up a bootstrap router in the core instead? That way, the RP can be dynamically selected, and the priority can still be set to 0.
upvoted 0 times
...
Billi
6 months ago
Hmm, I don't know. The bootstrap router option sounds good, but it might be overkill for our requirements. What about option D? Implementing Anycast-RP on the edge routers could give us the dynamic RP selection we need, with less complexity than the bootstrap router.
upvoted 0 times
...
Eun
6 months ago
I don't know, I'm a little worried about the static RP approach. What if we need to change the RP in the future? Wouldn't that be a pain to update on all the routers?
upvoted 0 times
...
Val
6 months ago
I'm not so sure about that, man. Static RP might be the simplest option, but it requires a lot of manual configuration across the entire network. What if we go with option C and implement a bootstrap router in the core? That way, we can have a dynamic RP selection process and reduce the burden on the ops team.
upvoted 0 times
...
Gladis
6 months ago
Whoa, this question is tricky! We have to implement multicast support following RFC 5059, with an RP priority of 0 and minimal supervision for the ops team. I'm leaning towards option B - implementing Static RP across all routers. That way, we can have a centralized RP and avoid the complexity of other solutions.
upvoted 0 times
...
Adelina
6 months ago
Good point, Martina. Maybe option B, static RP, would be better since we can explicitly set the priority to 0 on the candidate RP. That way, the operations team doesn't have to worry about it too much.
upvoted 0 times
Jordan
5 months ago
Bootstrap router in the network core might not be the best option for this scenario.
upvoted 0 times
...
Annalee
5 months ago
Implementing Anycast-RP on edge routers only could be a bit complex.
upvoted 0 times
...
Sherell
5 months ago
Auto-RP on candidate RP and mapping agent might require more supervision.
upvoted 0 times
...
Marget
5 months ago
That way the operations team won't need to supervise it much.
upvoted 0 times
...
Yasuko
5 months ago
We can set the priority to 0 on the candidate RP with static RP.
upvoted 0 times
...
Bettina
5 months ago
Option B, static RP, sounds like a good choice to meet the requirements.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Martina
6 months ago
But wait, don't we need to make sure the RP priority is set to 0? I'm not sure if Auto-RP would let us do that automatically.
upvoted 0 times
Mitzie
4 months ago
I don't think Auto-RP will allow us to set the RP priority to 0. Implementing Static RP might be the way to go.
upvoted 0 times
...
Rolande
4 months ago
But wouldn't implementing Auto-RP on the candidate RP and the mapping agent only be a more efficient solution?
upvoted 0 times
...
Aliza
4 months ago
In that case, we should consider implementing Static RP across all routers in the network.
upvoted 0 times
...
Jeniffer
5 months ago
Yes, we do need to make sure the RP priority is set to 0.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Stephaine
6 months ago
I agree, Samira. And with the PIMv2 sparse mode, I think option A might be the way to go. Auto-RP seems like the easiest way to handle the RP selection without too much manual configuration.
upvoted 0 times
...
Samira
6 months ago
Ooh, this is a tricky one! I'm not too familiar with all the multicast protocols, but I'm guessing the team needs to implement some kind of automatic RP discovery to meet the 'limited supervision' requirement.
upvoted 0 times
...

Save Cancel
az-700  pass4success  az-104  200-301  200-201  cissp  350-401  350-201  350-501  350-601  350-801  350-901  az-720  az-305  pl-300  

Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /pass.php:70) in /pass.php on line 77