The answer is to configure a static route in VRF USER pointing to the VRF MGMT’s SVI IP address and enable route leaking between the VRFs. This is correct because VRF-lite creates completely isolated routing tables, so inter-VRF routing with route leaking is required to allow traffic like SSH to cross from one VRF to another without merging them. By using a static route combined with import/export route-map commands, you selectively share the management subnet into the user VRF, maintaining strict separation while enabling the needed reachability. On the ENCOR 350-401 exam, this scenario tests your understanding of VRF-lite limitations and the simplest method for controlled cross-VRF communication—a common trap is assuming a single global route or a layer 3 port can bypass VRF boundaries. Remember the key principle: VRFs are silos; to talk between them, you must leak. A helpful memory tip is “Leak, don’t merge”—use targeted static routes and route-maps to share only what’s necessary.
CCNP VRF and Path Isolation Practice Question
This 350-401 practice question tests your understanding of vrf and path isolation. This is a configuration task: choose the command set that satisfies every stated requirement. Small differences — like 'secret' vs 'password' or 'transport input ssh' vs 'all' — change whether the answer is correct. After answering, compare your reasoning against the explanation and wrong-answer breakdown below. Once you have made your selection, read the full explanation to reinforce the concept and understand why each distractor is designed to mislead on exam day.
A company uses VRF-lite to separate management traffic (VRF MGMT) from user traffic (VRF USER) on a Cisco Catalyst 3850 stack. The management network is 10.0.0.0/24, and the user network is 192.168.1.0/24. The engineer wants to allow SSH access from the user network to the management network for device administration. The switch has an SVI for each VRF. What is the simplest way to achieve this while maintaining VRF isolation?
Answer the question above first, then reveal the full breakdown to understand why each option is right or wrong.
Correct answer & explanation
✓
Configure a static route in VRF USER pointing to the VRF MGMT's SVI IP address, and enable route leaking between the VRFs.
Option A is correct because VRF-lite inherently isolates routing tables, so to allow SSH from VRF USER to VRF MGMT while maintaining isolation, you must leak routes between the VRFs. A static route in VRF USER pointing to the VRF MGMT SVI IP address, combined with route leaking (e.g., using `route-map` and `import/export` commands), enables the necessary reachability without merging the VRFs. This is the simplest method as it avoids additional hardware or complex configurations.
Key principle: Answer the scenario, not the keyword: identify the specific constraint before choosing the most familiar-sounding option.
Answer analysis
Option-by-option breakdown
For each option: why learners choose it and why it is or isn't the right answer here.
✓
Configure a static route in VRF USER pointing to the VRF MGMT's SVI IP address, and enable route leaking between the VRFs.
Why this is correct
Correct because route leaking allows inter-VRF communication while keeping the VRFs separate. The static route tells USER how to reach MGMT.
Related concept
Read the scenario before looking for a memorised answer.
✗
Place both SVIs in the same VRF and use access-lists to restrict traffic.
Why it's wrong here
Incorrect because this defeats VRF isolation.
✗
Use a firewall between the VRFs to filter traffic.
Why it's wrong here
Incorrect because this is more complex and not the simplest method.
✗
Configure the switch to use the global routing table for SSH traffic only.
Why it's wrong here
Incorrect because the switch cannot selectively use global table for SSH; VRF assignment is interface-based.
Common exam traps
Common exam trap: answer the scenario, not the keyword
Cisco often tests the misconception that VRFs are completely isolated and cannot communicate without breaking isolation, but route leaking is the correct method to allow selective inter-VRF traffic while maintaining VRF separation.
Detailed technical explanation
How to think about this question
Route leaking between VRFs is typically implemented using VRF import/export with route-targets (RTs) or by configuring static routes with the `global` keyword and appropriate VRF forwarding. Under the hood, the switch maintains separate FIBs per VRF, and route leaking injects selected prefixes from one VRF into another, allowing inter-VRF communication while preserving isolation for other traffic. In real-world scenarios, this is common for management access to devices in separate VRFs, such as allowing SSH from a user VRF to a management VRF without exposing the entire management network.
KKey Concepts to Remember
Read the scenario before looking for a memorised answer.
Find the constraint that changes the correct option.
Eliminate answers that are true in general but not in this case.
TExam Day Tips
→Watch for words such as best, first, most likely and least administrative effort.
→Review why wrong options are wrong, not only why the correct option is correct.
Key takeaway
Answer the scenario, not the keyword: identify the specific constraint before choosing the most familiar-sounding option.
Real-world example
How this comes up in practice
A security administrator must allow nursing staff to reach a patient records server while blocking access from the guest Wi-Fi VLAN. After applying an extended ACL, traffic is still blocked from nursing workstations. The ACL was applied outbound instead of inbound on the wrong interface. Questions like this test ACL direction and placement rules.
What to study next
Got this wrong? Here's your next step.
Identify which exam domain this question belongs to, review the core concept, then practise similar questions from the same domain.
VRF and Path Isolation — This question tests VRF and Path Isolation — Read the scenario before looking for a memorised answer..
What is the correct answer to this question?
The correct answer is: Configure a static route in VRF USER pointing to the VRF MGMT's SVI IP address, and enable route leaking between the VRFs. — Option A is correct because VRF-lite inherently isolates routing tables, so to allow SSH from VRF USER to VRF MGMT while maintaining isolation, you must leak routes between the VRFs. A static route in VRF USER pointing to the VRF MGMT SVI IP address, combined with route leaking (e.g., using `route-map` and `import/export` commands), enables the necessary reachability without merging the VRFs. This is the simplest method as it avoids additional hardware or complex configurations.
What should I do if I get this 350-401 question wrong?
Identify which exam domain this question belongs to, review the core concept, then practise similar questions from the same domain.
What is the key concept behind this question?
Read the scenario before looking for a memorised answer.
About these practice questions
Courseiva creates original exam-style practice questions with explanations and wrong-answer analysis. It does not publish real exam questions, exam dumps, or protected exam content. Learn why practice questions differ from exam dumps →
Share a tip, memory trick, or ask about the reasoning behind this question. Do not post real exam questions, leaked content, braindumps, or copyrighted exam material. Comments are moderated and may be removed without notice.
This 350-401 practice question is part of Courseiva's free Cisco certification practice question bank. Courseiva provides original exam-style practice questions with explanations, topic-based practice, mock exams, readiness tracking, and study analytics to help learners prepare for the 350-401 exam.
Question Discussion
Share a tip, memory trick, or ask about the reasoning behind this question. Do not post real exam questions, leaked content, braindumps, or copyrighted exam material. Comments are moderated and may be removed without notice.
Sign in to join the discussion.