Pass the Cisco CCNP Enterprise 350-401 Questions and answers with CertsForce

Sw10

Config t

no int po1

default int ran et0/0-2

int ran e0/0-2

switchport trunk encap dot1q

switchport mode trunk

channel-group 1 mode active

no shut

wr

Solution:

R30

Config t

router ospf 100

router-id 10.0.1.30

int ran lo0 , e0/0-1

ip ospf 100 a 0

exit

int et0/2

ip ospf 100 a 50

exit

router ospf 30

area 50 range 10.10.0.0 255.255.192.0

area 50 range 10.50.0.0 255.255.192.0

end

wr

The correct answer is A. Interface FastEthernet0/0 is configured in VRF CUST-A, so the ARP entry is also in that VRF.

In Cisco VRF implementations, ARP entries are maintained separately per VRF, not in the global routing table. Cisco documentation states that with Multi-VRF CE, ARP entries are learned in separate VRFs, and the user can display them for a specific VRF. Cisco also documents the command show ip arp vrf < vrf-name > to display the ARP table for a specified VRF.

That means if the interface belongs to VRF CUST-A, a normal global show ip arp 192.168.12.2 may not display the entry, even though ping vrf CUST-A 192.168.12.2 succeeds. The ARP entry exists, but it is stored under the CUST-A VRF ARP table, not the global ARP table.

B. When VRFs are used, ARP protocol is disabled in the global routing table. This is incorrect. ARP is not disabled; it is simply VRF-aware and tracked separately per VRF.

C. When VRFs are used, ARP protocol must be enabled in each VRF. This is incorrect. There is no separate requirement to manually enable ARP in each VRF for normal operation in this context.

D. The ping command must be executed in the global routing table. This is incorrect because Cisco supports pinging within a specific VRF, and the exhibit already shows the use of ping vrf CUST-A .

ENCOR exam point:

With VRF-aware services, always remember:

Routing table = per VRF

ARP table = per VRF

Verification commands often require the VRF keyword

Chef: A, B

SaltStack: C, D

Chef is commonly associated with Ruby-based configuration management. Chef recipes and cookbooks are written using a Ruby-based domain-specific language, and the tool describes desired infrastructure state in a declarative manner. Therefore, “declarative” and “uses Ruby” map to Chef. SaltStack is written primarily in Python and is commonly described as more procedural and execution-oriented than purely declarative tools. Salt states can define desired configuration, but Salt is also known for remote execution, event-driven automation, and procedural orchestration workflows. Therefore, “uses Python” and “procedural” map to SaltStack. In ENCOR automation, the objective is not to become a Chef or SaltStack developer, but to recognize major automation/orchestration tools and their characteristics. Cisco exams commonly compare Ansible, Puppet, Chef, and SaltStack by language, agent model, execution method, and configuration style. Chef is Ruby/cookbook/recipe oriented; SaltStack is Python/minion/remote-execution oriented. References/topics: ENCOR Automation, orchestration platforms, Chef, SaltStack, declarative versus procedural automation, Ruby, Python.