Pass Cisco ENCOR 350-401 Exam in First Attempt Easily

Latest Cisco ENCOR 350-401 Practice Test Questions, ENCOR Exam Dumps
Accurate & Verified Answers As Experienced in the Actual Test!

You save
$39.99
Save
Verified by experts
350-401 Premium Bundle
Exam Code: 350-401
Exam Name: Implementing Cisco Enterprise Network Core Technologies (ENCOR)
Certification Provider: Cisco
Bundle includes 3 products: Premium File, Training Course, Study Guide
accept downloads in the last 7 days
350-401 Premium Bundle
  • Premium File 763 Questions & Answers
    Last Update: Nov 1, 2026
  • Training Course 196 Lectures
  • Study Guide 636 Pages

Implementing Cisco Enterprise Network Core Technologies (ENCOR) 350-401 Practice Test 33

Question 320

A post-change test follows this action: use OSPF summary-address on the ASBR where supported. Which result demonstrates success?

  1. Filtered type-3 interarea summaries disappear while intra-area LSAs remain.
  2. External route consumers see the intended aggregate LSA.
  3. IPv6 link-local neighbor addresses appear in OSPFv3 neighbor output.
  4. Routing output reveals EIGRP feasible distance versus OSPF total cost.

Explanation

Correct Answer

B:

External route consumers see the intended aggregate LSA. This is the targeted operational evidence for the change. External LSA summarization is distinct from ABR interarea ranges. Merely entering the configuration or seeing a management session is less conclusive than observing the resulting behavior.

Incorrect Answers

A:

This observation validates another operation: Recognize that ABR prefix filtering primarily controls interarea summary advertisement. An ABR filter-list is not a generic replacement for intra-area LSDB consistency. It is not decisive evidence that the change under examination works as required. A relevant verification must exercise its particular control or forwarding outcome.

C:

This observation validates another operation: Verify OSPFv3 link-local neighbor discovery and matching area configuration. OSPFv3 neighbor relationships use link-local adjacency behavior. It is not decisive evidence that the change under examination works as required. A relevant verification must exercise its particular control or forwarding outcome.

D:

This observation validates another operation: Evaluate EIGRP bandwidth/delay and OSPF cost separately. EIGRP metric logic differs from SPF cost accumulation. It is not decisive evidence that the change under examination works as required. A relevant verification must exercise its particular control or forwarding outcome.

Question 321

An OSPF filter-list is applied but intra-area routes still appear. Which action most directly addresses this situation?

  1. Recognize that ABR prefix filtering primarily controls interarea summary advertisement.
  2. Enable an appropriate OSPFv3 IPv6 address family on the interfaces.
  3. Make stub/NSSA capability and area type consistent on the peers.
  4. Match the EIGRP autonomous-system number and address-family settings.

Explanation

Correct Answer

A:

An ABR filter-list is not a generic replacement for intra-area LSDB consistency. The most direct remediation is recognize that ABR prefix filtering primarily controls interarea summary advertisement. A practical acceptance test is filtered type-3 interarea summaries disappear while intra-area LSAs remain. This distinguishes a configured intention from operational success.

Incorrect Answers

B:

This choice addresses a different situation: IPv6 OSPF adjacencies are missing because a v2-only process is configured. OSPFv3 can carry IPv6 reachability with its supported interface configuration. It does not specifically correct the issue here: an OSPF filter-list is applied but intra-area routes still appear.

C:

This choice addresses a different situation: A new OSPFv2 area has mismatched area type options across adjacent routers. OSPF options mismatches can prevent adjacency even with working IP. It does not specifically correct the issue here: an OSPF filter-list is applied but intra-area routes still appear.

D:

This choice addresses a different situation: An EIGRP neighbor is reachable but stuck without exchanging routes due to AS mismatch. EIGRP neighbors require compatible routing process identity. It does not specifically correct the issue here: an OSPF filter-list is applied but intra-area routes still appear.

Question 322

During acceptance testing after recognize that ABR prefix filtering primarily controls interarea summary advertisement., which evidence is most relevant?

  1. `show ospfv3 neighbor` reaches FULL and IPv6 routes install.
  2. Neighbor reaches FULL after matching area-type option bits.
  3. `show ip eigrp neighbors` lists the peer and topology routes populate.
  4. Filtered type-3 interarea summaries disappear while intra-area LSAs remain.

Explanation

Correct Answer

D:

Filtered type-3 interarea summaries disappear while intra-area LSAs remain. This is the targeted operational evidence for the change. An ABR filter-list is not a generic replacement for intra-area LSDB consistency. Merely entering the configuration or seeing a management session is less conclusive than observing the resulting behavior.

Incorrect Answers

A:

This observation validates another operation: Enable an appropriate OSPFv3 IPv6 address family on the interfaces. OSPFv3 can carry IPv6 reachability with its supported interface configuration. It is not decisive evidence that the change under examination works as required. A relevant verification must exercise its particular control or forwarding outcome.

B:

This observation validates another operation: Make stub/NSSA capability and area type consistent on the peers. OSPF options mismatches can prevent adjacency even with working IP. It is not decisive evidence that the change under examination works as required. A relevant verification must exercise its particular control or forwarding outcome.

C:

This observation validates another operation: Match the EIGRP autonomous-system number and address-family settings. EIGRP neighbors require compatible routing process identity. It is not decisive evidence that the change under examination works as required. A relevant verification must exercise its particular control or forwarding outcome.

Question 323

IPv6 OSPF adjacencies are missing because a v2-only process is configured. What is the most effective configuration or design response?

  1. Verify OSPFv3 link-local neighbor discovery and matching area configuration.
  2. Evaluate EIGRP bandwidth/delay and OSPF cost separately.
  3. Enable an appropriate OSPFv3 IPv6 address family on the interfaces.
  4. Check feasibility condition against the current successor feasible distance.

Explanation

Correct Answer

C:

OSPFv3 can carry IPv6 reachability with its supported interface configuration. The most direct remediation is enable an appropriate OSPFv3 IPv6 address family on the interfaces. A practical acceptance test is `show ospfv3 neighbor` reaches FULL and IPv6 routes install. This distinguishes a configured intention from operational success.

Incorrect Answers

A:

This choice addresses a different situation: An OSPFv3 router has IPv6 reachability but no neighbors over the link. OSPFv3 neighbor relationships use link-local adjacency behavior. It does not specifically correct the issue here: iPv6 OSPF adjacencies are missing because a v2-only process is configured.

B:

This choice addresses a different situation: A design uses EIGRP and needs to compare its composite metric with OSPF cost. EIGRP metric logic differs from SPF cost accumulation. It does not specifically correct the issue here: iPv6 OSPF adjacencies are missing because a v2-only process is configured.

D:

This choice addresses a different situation: Two EIGRP paths have unequal metrics and the backup should be feasible. An EIGRP feasible successor's reported distance must be less than successor FD. It does not specifically correct the issue here: iPv6 OSPF adjacencies are missing because a v2-only process is configured.

Question 324

An operator has applied the following change: enable an appropriate OSPFv3 IPv6 address family on the interfaces. Which observation best confirms it works?

  1. IPv6 link-local neighbor addresses appear in OSPFv3 neighbor output.
  2. `show ospfv3 neighbor` reaches FULL and IPv6 routes install.
  3. Routing output reveals EIGRP feasible distance versus OSPF total cost.
  4. `show ip eigrp topology` identifies a qualifying feasible successor.

Explanation

Correct Answer

B:

`show ospfv3 neighbor` reaches FULL and IPv6 routes install. This is the targeted operational evidence for the change. OSPFv3 can carry IPv6 reachability with its supported interface configuration. Merely entering the configuration or seeing a management session is less conclusive than observing the resulting behavior.

Incorrect Answers

A:

This observation validates another operation: Verify OSPFv3 link-local neighbor discovery and matching area configuration. OSPFv3 neighbor relationships use link-local adjacency behavior. It is not decisive evidence that the change under examination works as required. A relevant verification must exercise its particular control or forwarding outcome.

C:

This observation validates another operation: Evaluate EIGRP bandwidth/delay and OSPF cost separately. EIGRP metric logic differs from SPF cost accumulation. It is not decisive evidence that the change under examination works as required. A relevant verification must exercise its particular control or forwarding outcome.

D:

This observation validates another operation: Check feasibility condition against the current successor feasible distance. An EIGRP feasible successor's reported distance must be less than successor FD. It is not decisive evidence that the change under examination works as required. A relevant verification must exercise its particular control or forwarding outcome.

Question 325

An OSPFv3 router has IPv6 reachability but no neighbors over the link. Which change should the network engineer prioritize?

  1. Verify OSPFv3 link-local neighbor discovery and matching area configuration.
  2. Make stub/NSSA capability and area type consistent on the peers.
  3. Match the EIGRP autonomous-system number and address-family settings.
  4. Use an eligible EIGRP feasible successor where available.

Explanation

Correct Answer

A:

OSPFv3 neighbor relationships use link-local adjacency behavior. The most direct remediation is verify OSPFv3 link-local neighbor discovery and matching area configuration. A practical acceptance test is iPv6 link-local neighbor addresses appear in OSPFv3 neighbor output. This distinguishes a configured intention from operational success.

Incorrect Answers

B:

This choice addresses a different situation: A new OSPFv2 area has mismatched area type options across adjacent routers. OSPF options mismatches can prevent adjacency even with working IP. It does not specifically correct the issue here: an OSPFv3 router has IPv6 reachability but no neighbors over the link.

C:

This choice addresses a different situation: An EIGRP neighbor is reachable but stuck without exchanging routes due to AS mismatch. EIGRP neighbors require compatible routing process identity. It does not specifically correct the issue here: an OSPFv3 router has IPv6 reachability but no neighbors over the link.

D:

This choice addresses a different situation: A primary EIGRP path fails and the network needs immediate loop-free fallback. DUAL can promote a feasible successor without a full query process. It does not specifically correct the issue here: an OSPFv3 router has IPv6 reachability but no neighbors over the link.

Question 326

After implementing verify OSPFv3 link-local neighbor discovery and matching area configuration., which operational evidence should an engineer collect?

  1. Neighbor reaches FULL after matching area-type option bits.
  2. `show ip eigrp neighbors` lists the peer and topology routes populate.
  3. The alternate path becomes active without extended EIGRP active state.
  4. IPv6 link-local neighbor addresses appear in OSPFv3 neighbor output.

Explanation

Correct Answer

D:

IPv6 link-local neighbor addresses appear in OSPFv3 neighbor output. This is the targeted operational evidence for the change. OSPFv3 neighbor relationships use link-local adjacency behavior. Merely entering the configuration or seeing a management session is less conclusive than observing the resulting behavior.

Incorrect Answers

A:

This observation validates another operation: Make stub/NSSA capability and area type consistent on the peers. OSPF options mismatches can prevent adjacency even with working IP. It is not decisive evidence that the change under examination works as required. A relevant verification must exercise its particular control or forwarding outcome.

B:

This observation validates another operation: Match the EIGRP autonomous-system number and address-family settings. EIGRP neighbors require compatible routing process identity. It is not decisive evidence that the change under examination works as required. A relevant verification must exercise its particular control or forwarding outcome.

C:

This observation validates another operation: Use an eligible EIGRP feasible successor where available. DUAL can promote a feasible successor without a full query process. It is not decisive evidence that the change under examination works as required. A relevant verification must exercise its particular control or forwarding outcome.

Question 327

A new OSPFv2 area has mismatched area type options across adjacent routers. Which remediation best resolves the described symptom?

  1. Evaluate EIGRP bandwidth/delay and OSPF cost separately.
  2. Check feasibility condition against the current successor feasible distance.
  3. Make stub/NSSA capability and area type consistent on the peers.
  4. Correct EIGRP interface activation/network matching and passive settings.

Explanation

Correct Answer

C:

OSPF options mismatches can prevent adjacency even with working IP. The most direct remediation is make stub/NSSA capability and area type consistent on the peers. A practical acceptance test is neighbor reaches FULL after matching area-type option bits. This distinguishes a configured intention from operational success.

Incorrect Answers

A:

This choice addresses a different situation: A design uses EIGRP and needs to compare its composite metric with OSPF cost. EIGRP metric logic differs from SPF cost accumulation. It does not specifically correct the issue here: a new OSPFv2 area has mismatched area type options across adjacent routers.

B:

This choice addresses a different situation: Two EIGRP paths have unequal metrics and the backup should be feasible. An EIGRP feasible successor's reported distance must be less than successor FD. It does not specifically correct the issue here: a new OSPFv2 area has mismatched area type options across adjacent routers.

D:

This choice addresses a different situation: EIGRP neighbors form but route advertisement misses a subnet. An up adjacency alone does not ensure every interface prefix is advertised. It does not specifically correct the issue here: a new OSPFv2 area has mismatched area type options across adjacent routers.

Question 328

The change request says: make stub/NSSA capability and area type consistent on the peers. Which verification result is most decisive?

  1. Routing output reveals EIGRP feasible distance versus OSPF total cost.
  2. Neighbor reaches FULL after matching area-type option bits.
  3. `show ip eigrp topology` identifies a qualifying feasible successor.
  4. The desired subnet appears in neighbor routing tables.

Explanation

Correct Answer

B:

Neighbor reaches FULL after matching area-type option bits. This is the targeted operational evidence for the change. OSPF options mismatches can prevent adjacency even with working IP. Merely entering the configuration or seeing a management session is less conclusive than observing the resulting behavior.

Incorrect Answers

A:

This observation validates another operation: Evaluate EIGRP bandwidth/delay and OSPF cost separately. EIGRP metric logic differs from SPF cost accumulation. It is not decisive evidence that the change under examination works as required. A relevant verification must exercise its particular control or forwarding outcome.

C:

This observation validates another operation: Check feasibility condition against the current successor feasible distance. An EIGRP feasible successor's reported distance must be less than successor FD. It is not decisive evidence that the change under examination works as required. A relevant verification must exercise its particular control or forwarding outcome.

D:

This observation validates another operation: Correct EIGRP interface activation/network matching and passive settings. An up adjacency alone does not ensure every interface prefix is advertised. It is not decisive evidence that the change under examination works as required. A relevant verification must exercise its particular control or forwarding outcome.

Question 329

A design uses EIGRP and needs to compare its composite metric with OSPF cost. How should the team implement the required behavior?

  1. Evaluate EIGRP bandwidth/delay and OSPF cost separately.
  2. Match the EIGRP autonomous-system number and address-family settings.
  3. Use an eligible EIGRP feasible successor where available.
  4. Use the protocol-specific topology model and metric rules.

Explanation

Correct Answer

A:

EIGRP metric logic differs from SPF cost accumulation. The most direct remediation is evaluate EIGRP bandwidth/delay and OSPF cost separately. A practical acceptance test is routing output reveals EIGRP feasible distance versus OSPF total cost. This distinguishes a configured intention from operational success.

Incorrect Answers

B:

This choice addresses a different situation: An EIGRP neighbor is reachable but stuck without exchanging routes due to AS mismatch. EIGRP neighbors require compatible routing process identity. It does not specifically correct the issue here: a design uses EIGRP and needs to compare its composite metric with OSPF cost.

C:

This choice addresses a different situation: A primary EIGRP path fails and the network needs immediate loop-free fallback. DUAL can promote a feasible successor without a full query process. It does not specifically correct the issue here: a design uses EIGRP and needs to compare its composite metric with OSPF cost.

D:

This choice addresses a different situation: A network uses OSPF area types but the team assumes EIGRP behaves identically. EIGRP's DUAL distance-vector operation differs from OSPF link-state LSDB areas. It does not specifically correct the issue here: a design uses EIGRP and needs to compare its composite metric with OSPF cost.

Question 330

A post-change test follows this action: evaluate EIGRP bandwidth/delay and OSPF cost separately. Which result demonstrates success?

  1. `show ip eigrp neighbors` lists the peer and topology routes populate.
  2. The alternate path becomes active without extended EIGRP active state.
  3. EIGRP topology output lacks OSPF-style DR, area and type-3 LSA behavior.
  4. Routing output reveals EIGRP feasible distance versus OSPF total cost.

Explanation

Correct Answer

D:

Routing output reveals EIGRP feasible distance versus OSPF total cost. This is the targeted operational evidence for the change. EIGRP metric logic differs from SPF cost accumulation. Merely entering the configuration or seeing a management session is less conclusive than observing the resulting behavior.

Incorrect Answers

A:

This observation validates another operation: Match the EIGRP autonomous-system number and address-family settings. EIGRP neighbors require compatible routing process identity. It is not decisive evidence that the change under examination works as required. A relevant verification must exercise its particular control or forwarding outcome.

B:

This observation validates another operation: Use an eligible EIGRP feasible successor where available. DUAL can promote a feasible successor without a full query process. It is not decisive evidence that the change under examination works as required. A relevant verification must exercise its particular control or forwarding outcome.

C:

This observation validates another operation: Use the protocol-specific topology model and metric rules. EIGRP's DUAL distance-vector operation differs from OSPF link-state LSDB areas. It is not decisive evidence that the change under examination works as required. A relevant verification must exercise its particular control or forwarding outcome.

Implementing Cisco Enterprise Network Core Technologies (ENCOR) (350-401) Practice Tests

Purchase Cisco ENCOR 350-401 Exam Training Products Individually

350-401 Questions & Answers
Premium File
763 Questions & Answers
Last Update: Nov 1, 2026
$59.99
350-401 Training Course
196 Lectures
$24.99
350-401 Study Guide
Study Guide
636 Pages
$24.99
accept downloads in the last 7 days
What exactly is 350-401 Premium File?

The 350-401 Premium File has been developed by industry professionals, who have been working with IT certifications for years and have close ties with IT certification vendors and holders - with most recent exam questions and valid answers.

350-401 Premium File is presented in VCE format. VCE (Virtual CertExam) is a file format that realistically simulates 350-401 exam environment, allowing for the most convenient exam preparation you can get - in the convenience of your own home or on the go. If you have ever seen IT exam simulations, chances are, they were in the VCE format.

What is VCE?

VCE is a file format associated with Visual CertExam Software. This format and software are widely used for creating tests for IT certifications. To create and open VCE files, you will need to purchase, download and install VCE Exam Simulator on your computer.

Can I try it for free?

Yes, you can. Look through free VCE files section and download any file you choose absolutely free.

Where do I get VCE Exam Simulator?

VCE Exam Simulator can be purchased from its developer, https://www.avanset.com. Please note that Exam-Labs does not sell or support this software. Should you have any questions or concerns about using this product, please contact Avanset support team directly.

How are Premium VCE files different from Free VCE files?

Premium VCE files have been developed by industry professionals, who have been working with IT certifications for years and have close ties with IT certification vendors and holders - with most recent exam questions and some insider information.

Free VCE files All files are sent by Exam-labs community members. We encourage everyone who has recently taken an exam and/or has come across some braindumps that have turned out to be true to share this information with the community by creating and sending VCE files. We don't say that these free VCEs sent by our members aren't reliable (experience shows that they are). But you should use your critical thinking as to what you download and memorize.

How long will I receive updates for 350-401 Premium VCE File that I purchased?

Free updates are available during 30 days after you purchased Premium VCE file. After 30 days the file will become unavailable.

How can I get the products after purchase?

All products are available for download immediately from your Member's Area. Once you have made the payment, you will be transferred to Member's Area where you can login and download the products you have purchased to your PC or another device.

Will I be able to renew my products when they expire?

Yes, when the 30 days of your product validity are over, you have the option of renewing your expired products with a 30% discount. This can be done in your Member's Area.

Please note that you will not be able to use the product after it has expired if you don't renew it.

How often are the questions updated?

We always try to provide the latest pool of questions, Updates in the questions depend on the changes in actual pool of questions by different vendors. As soon as we know about the change in the exam question pool we try our best to update the products as fast as possible.

What is a Study Guide?

Study Guides available on Exam-Labs are built by industry professionals who have been working with IT certifications for years. Study Guides offer full coverage on exam objectives in a systematic approach. Study Guides are very useful for fresh applicants and provides background knowledge about preparation of exams.

How can I open a Study Guide?

Any study guide can be opened by an official Acrobat by Adobe or any other reader application you use.

What is a Training Course?

Training Courses we offer on Exam-Labs in video format are created and managed by IT professionals. The foundation of each course are its lectures, which can include videos, slides and text. In addition, authors can add resources and various types of practice activities, as a way to enhance the learning experience of students.

Enter Your Email Address to Proceed

Please fill out your email address below in order to purchase Certification/Exam.

A confirmation link will be sent to this email address to verify your login.

Make sure to enter correct email address.

Enter Your Email Address to Proceed

Please fill out your email address below in order to purchase Demo.

A confirmation link will be sent to this email address to verify your login.

Make sure to enter correct email address.

Still Not Convinced?

Download 20 Sample Questions that you Will see in your
Cisco 350-401 exam.

Download 20 Free Questions

or Guarantee your success by buying the full version which covers
the full latest pool of questions. (763 Questions, Last Updated on
Nov 1, 2026)

How It Works

Download Exam
Step 1. Choose Exam
on Exam-Labs
Download IT Exams Questions & Answers
Download Avanset Simulator
Step 2. Open Exam with
Avanset Exam Simulator
Press here to download VCE Exam Simulator that simulates latest exam environment
Study
Step 3. Study
& Pass
IT Exams Anywhere, Anytime!

SPECIAL OFFER: GET 10% OFF. This is ONE TIME OFFER

You save
10%
Save
Exam-Labs Special Discount

Enter Your Email Address to Receive Your 10% Off Discount Code

A confirmation link will be sent to this email address to verify your login

* We value your privacy. We will not rent or sell your email address.

SPECIAL OFFER: GET 10% OFF

You save
10%
Save
Exam-Labs Special Discount

USE DISCOUNT CODE:

A confirmation link was sent to your email.

Please check your mailbox for a message from [email protected] and follow the directions.