Cisco Certified Support Technician (CCST) Networking 100-150 Practice Test 25
Question 240
Before approving the action, review: At the fictional Junction Student Center while checking a service ticket, the team observes: A network drawing marks 8.8.8.8 and 192.168.1.10 as the same address-scope type for internet routing. During “Distinguish public and private source scopes and identify the required boundary translation.”, which precaution MOST specifically prevents a related risk?
- Do not assume unique-local IPv6 prefixes are globally routed by internet providers.
- Do not confuse the first usable host with the subnet's broadcast address.
- Do not classify public DNS destinations as internal RFC 1918 hosts.
- Do not assign an ff02:: multicast address as an ordinary single-host unicast interface.
Explanation
Correct Answer
C:Correct. This precaution prevents a second fault while applying “Distinguish public and private source scopes and identify the required boundary translation.” at the fictional Junction Student Center. The required protection is “Do not classify public DNS destinations as internal RFC 1918 hosts.”; success still requires “The route-and-NAT diagram treats the public DNS service differently from the local private host.”.
Incorrect Answers
A:This caution is appropriate for a separate failure pattern: A student sees fd34:5:6::10 and labels it a global publicly reachable address merely because it is 128 bits long. The principal adjacent risk here is controlled by “Do not classify public DNS destinations as internal RFC 1918 hosts.”.
B:This caution is appropriate for a separate failure pattern: A LAN router's 192.168.40.1/24 interface is documented as the segment broadcast destination rather than a valid host. The principal adjacent risk here is controlled by “Do not classify public DNS destinations as internal RFC 1918 hosts.”.
D:This caution is appropriate for a separate failure pattern: A device sends a packet to ff02::1 and the support note calls it a single host's IPv6 unicast address. The principal adjacent risk here is controlled by “Do not classify public DNS destinations as internal RFC 1918 hosts.”.
Question 241
A technician reviews the following issue: At the fictional Bramble Insurance during basic configuration verification, the team observes: A workstation uses 192.168.10.130/25 and the help desk claims its subnet network address is 192.168.10.0. Which action MOST directly resolves the reported issue?
- Use the configured /27 prefix and corresponding mask for the subnet calculation.
- Calculate the /25 network by masking the last octet and choose 192.168.10.128 as the network ID.
- Recognize the shared address scope and confirm carrier NAT or dedicated public access requirements.
- Keep the private prefix internally and arrange approved NAT or public address allocation at the network edge.
Explanation
Correct Answer
B:Correct. In the fictional Bramble Insurance case, The /25 boundary splits the /24 into 0–127 and 128–255, placing .130 in 192.168.10.128/25. The specified corrective action, “Calculate the /25 network by masking the last octet and choose 192.168.10.128 as the network ID.”, directly targets that condition. Evidence of resolution: The resulting subnet has network .128, usable hosts .129–.254 and broadcast .255.
Incorrect Answers
A:That action addresses a different network issue: A trainee is told an old Class C IPv4 label requires a /24 mask even though a configured interface explicitly uses /27. The present fictional Bramble Insurance finding instead needs “Calculate the /25 network by masking the last octet and choose 192.168.10.128 as the network ID.”, verified by “The resulting subnet has network .128, usable hosts .129–.254 and broadcast .255.”.
C:That action addresses a different network issue: A guest Wi-Fi laptop shows 100.70.4.9 on the carrier-facing status page and the technician treats it as a customer-owned public IPv4 for inbound hosting. The present fictional Bramble Insurance finding instead needs “Calculate the /25 network by masking the last octet and choose 192.168.10.128 as the network ID.”, verified by “The resulting subnet has network .128, usable hosts .129–.254 and broadcast .255.”.
D:That action addresses a different network issue: A support analyst believes an internal 192.168.50.0/24 address can be made public solely by changing the router's default route. The present fictional Bramble Insurance finding instead needs “Calculate the /25 network by masking the last octet and choose 192.168.10.128 as the network ID.”, verified by “The resulting subnet has network .128, usable hosts .129–.254 and broadcast .255.”.
Question 242
An incident reviewer analyzes this observation: At the fictional Bramble Insurance during basic configuration verification, the team observes: A workstation uses 192.168.10.130/25 and the help desk claims its subnet network address is 192.168.10.0. What is the MOST specific underlying cause?
- The /25 boundary splits the /24 into 0–127 and 128–255, placing .130 in 192.168.10.128/25.
- ff00::/8 identifies IPv6 multicast addresses, and ff02::1 targets all nodes on the local link.
- IPv6 addresses are 128 bits, and /64 identifies 64 network-prefix bits leaving 64 interface-identifier bits.
- 100.64.0.0/10 is shared address space commonly used for carrier-grade NAT rather than individually public internet addresses.
Explanation
Correct Answer
A:Correct. This mechanism fits the observed network symptom at the fictional Bramble Insurance: The /25 boundary splits the /24 into 0–127 and 128–255, placing .130 in 192.168.10.128/25. The corresponding remedy is “Calculate the /25 network by masking the last octet and choose 192.168.10.128 as the network ID.”. Confirmation: The resulting subnet has network .128, usable hosts .129–.254 and broadcast .255.
Incorrect Answers
B:That cause belongs to a different case: A device sends a packet to ff02::1 and the support note calls it a single host's IPv6 unicast address. The observed fictional Bramble Insurance condition is specifically explained by “The /25 boundary splits the /24 into 0–127 and 128–255, placing .130 in 192.168.10.128/25.”.
C:That cause belongs to a different case: A technician assumes an IPv6 /64 has a 64-bit address in total rather than a 128-bit address with a 64-bit prefix. The observed fictional Bramble Insurance condition is specifically explained by “The /25 boundary splits the /24 into 0–127 and 128–255, placing .130 in 192.168.10.128/25.”.
D:That cause belongs to a different case: A guest Wi-Fi laptop shows 100.70.4.9 on the carrier-facing status page and the technician treats it as a customer-owned public IPv4 for inbound hosting. The observed fictional Bramble Insurance condition is specifically explained by “The /25 boundary splits the /24 into 0–127 and 128–255, placing .130 in 192.168.10.128/25.”.
Question 243
After an approved correction, the support team reviews: At the fictional Bramble Insurance during basic configuration verification, the team observes: A workstation uses 192.168.10.130/25 and the help desk claims its subnet network address is 192.168.10.0. The approved corrective action is: “Calculate the /25 network by masking the last octet and choose 192.168.10.128 as the network ID.” Which result BEST demonstrates success?
- Packet analysis shows multiple eligible local nodes can receive the multicast transmission.
- The link-local address remains local while the global address reaches a remote IPv6 host.
- The annotation correctly allocates 64 bits to each part of the 128-bit address.
- The resulting subnet has network .128, usable hosts .129–.254 and broadcast .255.
Explanation
Correct Answer
D:Correct. This is the required observable acceptance evidence for “Calculate the /25 network by masking the last octet and choose 192.168.10.128 as the network ID.” at the fictional Bramble Insurance. It demonstrates correction of the original cause: The /25 boundary splits the /24 into 0–127 and 128–255, placing .130 in 192.168.10.128/25.
Incorrect Answers
A:That result is evidence for a separate corrective action, “Recognize ff02::1 as link-local multicast rather than a host unicast destination.”. It does not establish the intended outcome “The resulting subnet has network .128, usable hosts .129–.254 and broadcast .255.” for the fictional Bramble Insurance case.
B:That result is evidence for a separate corrective action, “Use an assigned global unicast or properly routed address for off-link communication.”. It does not establish the intended outcome “The resulting subnet has network .128, usable hosts .129–.254 and broadcast .255.” for the fictional Bramble Insurance case.
C:That result is evidence for a separate corrective action, “Explain the /64 split between network prefix and interface identifier for the example subnet.”. It does not establish the intended outcome “The resulting subnet has network .128, usable hosts .129–.254 and broadcast .255.” for the fictional Bramble Insurance case.
Question 244
Before approving the action, review: At the fictional Bramble Insurance during basic configuration verification, the team observes: A workstation uses 192.168.10.130/25 and the help desk claims its subnet network address is 192.168.10.0. During “Calculate the /25 network by masking the last octet and choose 192.168.10.128 as the network ID.”, which precaution MOST specifically prevents a related risk?
- Do not place an IPv4 default prefix in an IPv6-only routing table.
- Do not treat 2001:db8:: documentation space as a routable production IPv6 allocation.
- Do not use the broader /24 network address when the configured interface is /25.
- Do not assign an ff02:: multicast address as an ordinary single-host unicast interface.
Explanation
Correct Answer
C:Correct. This precaution prevents a second fault while applying “Calculate the /25 network by masking the last octet and choose 192.168.10.128 as the network ID.” at the fictional Bramble Insurance. The required protection is “Do not use the broader /24 network address when the configured interface is /25.”; success still requires “The resulting subnet has network .128, usable hosts .129–.254 and broadcast .255.”.
Incorrect Answers
A:This caution is appropriate for a separate failure pattern: A router carries an IPv6 default route and a trainee writes it as 0.0.0.0/0 in the IPv6 route table. The principal adjacent risk here is controlled by “Do not use the broader /24 network address when the configured interface is /25.”.
B:This caution is appropriate for a separate failure pattern: An IPv6 endpoint is configured with 2001:db8:abcd:2::9/64 for a lab and the technician expects it to be a publicly assigned production Internet prefix. The principal adjacent risk here is controlled by “Do not use the broader /24 network address when the configured interface is /25.”.
D:This caution is appropriate for a separate failure pattern: A device sends a packet to ff02::1 and the support note calls it a single host's IPv6 unicast address. The principal adjacent risk here is controlled by “Do not use the broader /24 network address when the configured interface is /25.”.
Question 245
A technician reviews the following issue: At the fictional Glenhaven Council while assessing a controlled network fault, the team observes: A site requests at least 50 usable IPv4 addresses and the trainee chooses a /27 because 32 looks close to 50. Which action MOST directly resolves the reported issue?
- Replace client-side loopback targeting with the server's reachable interface name or address.
- Select a /26 block for a conventional single-subnet requirement of at least 50 hosts.
- Keep 2001:db8:abcd:2::/64 in documentation and use a real assigned prefix for production.
- Use an assigned global unicast or properly routed address for off-link communication.
Explanation
Correct Answer
B:Correct. In the fictional Glenhaven Council case, A /27 contains only 32 total IPv4 addresses and 30 conventional usable hosts; /26 provides 62 usable. The specified corrective action, “Select a /26 block for a conventional single-subnet requirement of at least 50 hosts.”, directly targets that condition. Evidence of resolution: The capacity calculation shows 64 total addresses, 62 usable host addresses, and the reserved endpoints.
Incorrect Answers
A:That action addresses a different network issue: A developer uses 127.0.0.1 as the server address in an application deployed to other PCs on the LAN. The present fictional Glenhaven Council finding instead needs “Select a /26 block for a conventional single-subnet requirement of at least 50 hosts.”, verified by “The capacity calculation shows 64 total addresses, 62 usable host addresses, and the reserved endpoints.”.
C:That action addresses a different network issue: An IPv6 endpoint is configured with 2001:db8:abcd:2::9/64 for a lab and the technician expects it to be a publicly assigned production Internet prefix. The present fictional Glenhaven Council finding instead needs “Select a /26 block for a conventional single-subnet requirement of at least 50 hosts.”, verified by “The capacity calculation shows 64 total addresses, 62 usable host addresses, and the reserved endpoints.”.
D:That action addresses a different network issue: A workstation shows fe80::7a4b on its IPv6 interface and a technician tries to route it as a globally reachable internet destination. The present fictional Glenhaven Council finding instead needs “Select a /26 block for a conventional single-subnet requirement of at least 50 hosts.”, verified by “The capacity calculation shows 64 total addresses, 62 usable host addresses, and the reserved endpoints.”.
Question 246
An incident reviewer analyzes this observation: At the fictional Glenhaven Council while assessing a controlled network fault, the team observes: A site requests at least 50 usable IPv4 addresses and the trainee chooses a /27 because 32 looks close to 50. What is the MOST specific underlying cause?
- A /27 contains only 32 total IPv4 addresses and 30 conventional usable hosts; /26 provides 62 usable.
- IPv6 fe80::/10 is link-local scope and ordinarily works only on the local link.
- The 192.168.0.0/16 block is RFC 1918 private addressing and is not routed as an ordinary public destination.
- 100.64.0.0/10 is shared address space commonly used for carrier-grade NAT rather than individually public internet addresses.
Explanation
Correct Answer
A:Correct. This mechanism fits the observed network symptom at the fictional Glenhaven Council: A /27 contains only 32 total IPv4 addresses and 30 conventional usable hosts; /26 provides 62 usable. The corresponding remedy is “Select a /26 block for a conventional single-subnet requirement of at least 50 hosts.”. Confirmation: The capacity calculation shows 64 total addresses, 62 usable host addresses, and the reserved endpoints.
Incorrect Answers
B:That cause belongs to a different case: A workstation shows fe80::7a4b on its IPv6 interface and a technician tries to route it as a globally reachable internet destination. The observed fictional Glenhaven Council condition is specifically explained by “A /27 contains only 32 total IPv4 addresses and 30 conventional usable hosts; /26 provides 62 usable.”.
C:That cause belongs to a different case: A small-office PC uses 192.168.40.17 and a trainee proposes advertising it as a directly reachable address on the public internet. The observed fictional Glenhaven Council condition is specifically explained by “A /27 contains only 32 total IPv4 addresses and 30 conventional usable hosts; /26 provides 62 usable.”.
D:That cause belongs to a different case: A guest Wi-Fi laptop shows 100.70.4.9 on the carrier-facing status page and the technician treats it as a customer-owned public IPv4 for inbound hosting. The observed fictional Glenhaven Council condition is specifically explained by “A /27 contains only 32 total IPv4 addresses and 30 conventional usable hosts; /26 provides 62 usable.”.
Question 247
After an approved correction, the support team reviews: At the fictional Glenhaven Council while assessing a controlled network fault, the team observes: A site requests at least 50 usable IPv4 addresses and the trainee chooses a /27 because 32 looks close to 50. The approved corrective action is: “Select a /26 block for a conventional single-subnet requirement of at least 50 hosts.” Which result BEST demonstrates success?
- The client reaches its router using a nonloopback interface address and ::1 still tests itself.
- The IPv6 forwarding table lists ::/0 and can select it for destinations without a more-specific route.
- The design uses ULA internally and chooses an appropriate global prefix for internet reachability.
- The capacity calculation shows 64 total addresses, 62 usable host addresses, and the reserved endpoints.
Explanation
Correct Answer
D:Correct. This is the required observable acceptance evidence for “Select a /26 block for a conventional single-subnet requirement of at least 50 hosts.” at the fictional Glenhaven Council. It demonstrates correction of the original cause: A /27 contains only 32 total IPv4 addresses and 30 conventional usable hosts; /26 provides 62 usable.
Incorrect Answers
A:That result is evidence for a separate corrective action, “Configure a reachable next-hop address and keep ::1 for local IPv6 loopback tests.”. It does not establish the intended outcome “The capacity calculation shows 64 total addresses, 62 usable host addresses, and the reserved endpoints.” for the fictional Glenhaven Council case.
B:That result is evidence for a separate corrective action, “Use ::/0 with the appropriate IPv6 next hop in the IPv6 routing table.”. It does not establish the intended outcome “The capacity calculation shows 64 total addresses, 62 usable host addresses, and the reserved endpoints.” for the fictional Glenhaven Council case.
C:That result is evidence for a separate corrective action, “Classify the fd34:5:6::10 address as ULA and distinguish it from global unicast.”. It does not establish the intended outcome “The capacity calculation shows 64 total addresses, 62 usable host addresses, and the reserved endpoints.” for the fictional Glenhaven Council case.
Question 248
Before approving the action, review: At the fictional Glenhaven Council while assessing a controlled network fault, the team observes: A site requests at least 50 usable IPv4 addresses and the trainee chooses a /27 because 32 looks close to 50. During “Select a /26 block for a conventional single-subnet requirement of at least 50 hosts.”, which precaution MOST specifically prevents a related risk?
- Do not assume a 100.70.x.x WAN address is independently public and accepts inbound internet connections.
- Do not treat 2001:db8:: documentation space as a routable production IPv6 allocation.
- Do not count the all-host-zero network or all-host-one broadcast address as an ordinary host.
- Do not set ::1 as the next-hop address for another network device.
Explanation
Correct Answer
C:Correct. This precaution prevents a second fault while applying “Select a /26 block for a conventional single-subnet requirement of at least 50 hosts.” at the fictional Glenhaven Council. The required protection is “Do not count the all-host-zero network or all-host-one broadcast address as an ordinary host.”; success still requires “The capacity calculation shows 64 total addresses, 62 usable host addresses, and the reserved endpoints.”.
Incorrect Answers
A:This caution is appropriate for a separate failure pattern: A guest Wi-Fi laptop shows 100.70.4.9 on the carrier-facing status page and the technician treats it as a customer-owned public IPv4 for inbound hosting. The principal adjacent risk here is controlled by “Do not count the all-host-zero network or all-host-one broadcast address as an ordinary host.”.
B:This caution is appropriate for a separate failure pattern: An IPv6 endpoint is configured with 2001:db8:abcd:2::9/64 for a lab and the technician expects it to be a publicly assigned production Internet prefix. The principal adjacent risk here is controlled by “Do not count the all-host-zero network or all-host-one broadcast address as an ordinary host.”.
D:This caution is appropriate for a separate failure pattern: An IPv6 client has ::1 and the engineer tries to use it as the next-hop router address. The principal adjacent risk here is controlled by “Do not count the all-host-zero network or all-host-one broadcast address as an ordinary host.”.
Question 249
A technician reviews the following issue: At the fictional Beacon Arts School after a site connectivity report, the team observes: A technician is given 10.8.12.72/29 and assigns .79 to a printer, assuming every number in the block is usable. Which action MOST directly resolves the reported issue?
- Keep 2001:db8:abcd:2::/64 in documentation and use a real assigned prefix for production.
- Assign the printer one of 10.8.12.73 through 10.8.12.78 instead.
- Identify the appropriate link-local IPv6 multicast group for the intended discovery or group message.
- Check neighbor solicitation and advertisement traffic for the IPv6 peer on the local link.
Explanation
Correct Answer
B:Correct. In the fictional Beacon Arts School case, In the /29 block .72–.79, .72 is the network address and .79 is the directed broadcast. The specified corrective action, “Assign the printer one of 10.8.12.73 through 10.8.12.78 instead.”, directly targets that condition. Evidence of resolution: The printer uses a valid host IP and neither the network nor broadcast address is allocated to equipment.
Incorrect Answers
A:That action addresses a different network issue: An IPv6 endpoint is configured with 2001:db8:abcd:2::9/64 for a lab and the technician expects it to be a publicly assigned production Internet prefix. The present fictional Beacon Arts School finding instead needs “Assign the printer one of 10.8.12.73 through 10.8.12.78 instead.”, verified by “The printer uses a valid host IP and neither the network nor broadcast address is allocated to equipment.”.
C:That action addresses a different network issue: A technician expects IPv6 to send a subnet-wide broadcast address like 192.168.1.255 when contacting all local nodes. The present fictional Beacon Arts School finding instead needs “Assign the printer one of 10.8.12.73 through 10.8.12.78 instead.”, verified by “The printer uses a valid host IP and neither the network nor broadcast address is allocated to equipment.”.
D:That action addresses a different network issue: An engineer expects an IPv6 host to ARP for a neighbor's MAC address exactly as IPv4 does. The present fictional Beacon Arts School finding instead needs “Assign the printer one of 10.8.12.73 through 10.8.12.78 instead.”, verified by “The printer uses a valid host IP and neither the network nor broadcast address is allocated to equipment.”.
Question 250
An incident reviewer analyzes this observation: At the fictional Beacon Arts School after a site connectivity report, the team observes: A technician is given 10.8.12.72/29 and assigns .79 to a printer, assuming every number in the block is usable. What is the MOST specific underlying cause?
- In the /29 block .72–.79, .72 is the network address and .79 is the directed broadcast.
- The RFC 1918 private range spans 172.16.0.0 through 172.31.255.255, including 172.20.14.8.
- 8.8.8.8 is publicly addressed while 192.168.1.10 belongs to private RFC 1918 space.
- Modern CIDR prefix length determines the actual subnet boundary rather than the historical address class label.
Explanation
Correct Answer
A:Correct. This mechanism fits the observed network symptom at the fictional Beacon Arts School: In the /29 block .72–.79, .72 is the network address and .79 is the directed broadcast. The corresponding remedy is “Assign the printer one of 10.8.12.73 through 10.8.12.78 instead.”. Confirmation: The printer uses a valid host IP and neither the network nor broadcast address is allocated to equipment.
Incorrect Answers
B:That cause belongs to a different case: A branch device has 172.20.14.8 but a technician labels it public because every 172.x.x.x address is public. The observed fictional Beacon Arts School condition is specifically explained by “In the /29 block .72–.79, .72 is the network address and .79 is the directed broadcast.”.
C:That cause belongs to a different case: A network drawing marks 8.8.8.8 and 192.168.1.10 as the same address-scope type for internet routing. The observed fictional Beacon Arts School condition is specifically explained by “In the /29 block .72–.79, .72 is the network address and .79 is the directed broadcast.”.
D:That cause belongs to a different case: A trainee is told an old Class C IPv4 label requires a /24 mask even though a configured interface explicitly uses /27. The observed fictional Beacon Arts School condition is specifically explained by “In the /29 block .72–.79, .72 is the network address and .79 is the directed broadcast.”.