Authentic Cisco Certification Exam 300-445 Questions Answers

In theDesigning and Implementing Enterprise Network Assurance (300-445 ENNA)architecture, a critical design consideration is the impact of the monitoring solution on the production environment. The primary advantage ofpassive monitoring(Option B) is its non-intrusive nature; it provides insights into network performance and traffic composition without injecting additional "synthetic" overhead into the data plane.

Passive techniques—such asCisco Meraki Insight (MI), NetFlow, and SNMP—rely on the telemetry generated by existing user traffic or the device's own control plane. For example, Meraki Insight analyzes HTTP/S flows as they naturally pass through a Meraki MX appliance to derive application performance scores, rather than sending separate probes.5This ensures that the monitoring tool itself does not consume bandwidth or contribute to network congestion, which is particularly vital in bandwidth-constrained branch environments or on high-utilization links.

In contrast,active monitoring(Options A and C) requires the deliberate generation of synthetic traffic, which can potentially skew results if the volume is too high or if the network is already at capacity. While active monitoring is essential for proactive troubleshooting (measuring performance before users complain), passive monitoring is the preferred method for long-term historical analysis of real user experience and infrastructure utilization because it captures what is actually happening on the wire. Option D is a shared capability; both types can measure specific services, but only passive monitoring does so while remaining transparent to the network load. Therefore, the lack of added traffic is the definitive advantage of the passive approach.

In theDesigning and Implementing Enterprise Network Assurance (300-445 ENNA)curriculum, monitoring modern APIs often requires handling complex authentication flows, such as OAuth 2.0 with specific client credential parameters. The provided exhibit illustrates theHTTP Authenticationoptions available within a standard HTTP Server test: None, Basic, NTLM, Kerberos, and OAuth.

According to the ENNA implementation standards, while the HTTP Server test type supportsOAuth(Option C), its native implementation is limited. Specifically, it is designed to use a pre-existing token or a simple token refresh flow; it does not support the injection of custom parameters in the initial POST request required to obtain a token in many enterprise client-credential scenarios. Basic and NTLM (Options A and B) are legacy protocols that rely on simple username/password headers and cannot facilitate the multi-step token exchange process described.

To fulfill the requirement of a two-step flow (POST for token, followed by GET for resource), engineers must use more flexible test types:

Transaction scripts (Option D):These allow the engineer to write custom JavaScript using the ThousandEyes transaction library to programmatically handle the POST request, parse the resulting JSON token, and then pass that token into the subsequent GET request's header.

API tests (Option E):These are purpose-built for API monitoring and natively support the definition of variables and multi-step requests where the output of one call (the token) serves as the input for the next.

By utilizing these advanced test types, the engineer can successfully navigate complex authentication requirements that the standard HTTP Server test cannot accommodate.

In theDesigning and Implementing Enterprise Network Assurance (300-445 ENNA)curriculum, capacity planning and optimization are driven by telemetry data such as NetFlow. When NetFlow identifies that delay and jitter—metrics highly impactful to real-time traffic—spike during peak hours, it indicates that high-priority packets are competing for resources with bulk data.

The most appropriate recommendation is totune the existing QoS configuration(Option C). This involves adjusting the Queuing and Scheduling policies on the routers to ensure that voice and video traffic (typically marked with EF and AF41/AF42 DSCP values) is serviced before other traffic classes during periods of congestion. This solution is targeted, cost-effective, and directly addresses the observed jitter issues without the need for massive capital expenditure.

Reviewing other options:

Option A:A complete QoS redesign is often unnecessary and too invasive for solving peak-hour jitter if a basic QoS framework is already in place.

Option B:Increasing bandwidth on "all" links is a "brute force" approach that is expensive and fails to address the underlying problem of traffic prioritization.

Option D:Hardware replacement is a last resort and would not resolve delay/jitter if the new hardware still lacks a properly tuned QoS policy.