You save $69.98
At a clinic, the branch support lead must document the network address containing host 10.17.122.46/24. Which address is that network ID?
Masking 10.17.122.46 with /24 yields network 10.17.122.0; the subnet block contains 256 addresses through 10.17.122.255. That is the correct network ID for an SVI or static route.
This is the next subnet after 10.17.122.0/24; the given host 10.17.122.46 resides in the preceding block. The prefix boundary is fixed by 255.255.255.0.
10.17.122.255 is the last address in the block, not its network address. A broadcast address has host bits set to one.
This address identifies the adjacent lower block, not the /24 network containing 10.17.122.46. A network ID is obtained by zeroing all 8 host bits.
At a university, the branch support lead reviews host 10.56.116.212/26. Which IPv4 address is the directed broadcast of that subnet?
For 10.56.116.192/26, all 6 host bits set to one yield broadcast 10.56.116.255. The final usable host, if any, is one address before it.
10.56.117.0 begins the next subnet block. It cannot be the broadcast for the subnet containing 10.56.116.212.
10.56.116.192 has host bits set to zero, so it is the network ID rather than broadcast. The block ends at 10.56.116.255.
10.56.116.254 is the highest usable host in the /26 block, not the directed broadcast. It lacks the all-ones host pattern.
Two Cisco routers connect by one dedicated point-to-point link. The architect proposes 198.51.100.20/31 on R1 and 198.51.100.21/31 on R2. Both interfaces support RFC 3021 addressing. Which assessment is correct?
With a supported /31 point-to-point link, both addresses in the two-address prefix identify endpoints; there is no separate directed broadcast address to reserve. Verify both interfaces' masks and reachability.
The ordinary network/broadcast reservation does not exclude .20 on an RFC 3021 point-to-point link. Applying the multiaccess /30 rule would waste addressing and reject a valid design.
For this supported point-to-point use, a /31 has two assignable interface addresses. A /30 would also work but is not required merely to provide a broadcast address.
Using an identical /32 on both routers creates an address conflict and does not establish two distinct directly connected peers.
At an airport terminal, a network administrator needs a valid unicast gateway address in subnet 172.20.87.8/29. Which proposed IPv4 address is usable without using its network or broadcast address?
172.20.87.13 falls strictly between 172.20.87.8 and 172.20.87.15; it is a valid host inside 172.20.87.8/29. That meets the requested gateway address constraint.
172.20.87.8 is the all-zero host-bit network address for 172.20.87.8/29, not a normal interface IP on this LAN.
172.20.87.16 is beyond the upper boundary of 172.20.87.8/29. Even though it looks adjacent, it belongs to the next subnet.
172.20.87.15 is the all-one host-bit directed broadcast for 172.20.87.8/29; using it as the gateway would conflict with broadcast behavior.
At a municipal utility, the on-call technician is configuring a Cisco interface in a /25 IPv4 network. Which dotted-decimal mask matches the given prefix?
Prefix /25 sets 25 leading one bits, producing dotted mask 255.255.255.128. The remaining 7 bits define host numbering.
Mask 255.255.192.0 represents /18, not /25. Counting contiguous one bits gives the distinction.
Mask 255.255.240.0 represents /20, not /25. Counting contiguous one bits gives the distinction.
Mask 255.255.255.240 represents /28, not /25. Counting contiguous one bits gives the distinction.
At a regional office, the migration lead needs RFC1918 addresses for an isolated branch LAN with no public address assignment. Which choice best addresses the stated requirement?
The entire 10/8 block is private IPv4 space and is not globally internet-routed.
Link-local autoconfiguration is not RFC1918 centrally routed addressing.
224/4 is IPv4 multicast address space.
The 11/8 block is not one of the three RFC1918 private ranges.
At an engineering company, an implementation partner must verify whether address 172.31.88.10 can be used inside a private VLAN. Which choice best addresses the stated requirement?
RFC1918 covers 172.16.0.0 through 172.31.255.255 inclusive. In this setting, recognize 172.16.0.0/12 as the rfc1918 private 172-range directly meets the specified requirement; verify the resulting behavior rather than only the command being accepted.
Only the 172.16/12 subset is RFC1918.
172.32 exceeds the private range upper bound.
127/8 is loopback, not the RFC1918 172 block.
At a bank branch, the migration lead is selecting a private subnet for an internal management segment using 192.168 addresses. Which choice best addresses the stated requirement?
192.168/16 is an RFC1918 private range commonly subnetted for internal use.
192.169/16 is not included in RFC1918 private space.
Limited broadcast is not an assignable unicast gateway.
198.51.100/24 is documentation-use TEST-NET-2, not a private-production allocation.
At a satellite office, the migration lead observes a laptop self-assigning 169.254.31.19 and losing routed connectivity after DHCP failure. Which choice best addresses the stated requirement?
169.254/16 is IPv4 link-local autoconfiguration commonly seen when DHCP assignment fails.
Both are non-public in many uses but link-local and RFC1918 are distinct scopes.
IPv4 link-local addresses are not public globally routed assignments.
Application transport ports do not make a DHCP server reachable.
At a design agency, the security and networking lead is designing internet egress for internal 10.40.0.0/16 clients without allocating individual public IPv4 addresses. Which choice best addresses the stated requirement?
RFC1918 addresses typically need appropriate NAT/PAT or a proxy to access public internet destinations.
Private 10/8 routes should not be globally propagated.
A multicast address is not a normal unicast next-hop.
Duplicate device addresses create conflicts and do not implement egress translation.
At a design agency, the security and networking lead needs RFC1918 addresses for an isolated branch LAN with no public address assignment. During review, someone proposes: "Allocate 11.0.0.0/8 as though it were RFC1918." Which technical explanation most directly shows why this proposal does not solve the requirement?
The 11/8 block is not one of the three RFC1918 private ranges. The effective remedy is to use an address from 10.0.0.0/8 for the internal host.
Link-local autoconfiguration is not RFC1918 centrally routed addressing. It concerns a different proposed change, not the change being evaluated.
224/4 is IPv4 multicast address space. That distinction is technically relevant elsewhere, but it does not identify the failure of the proposed allocate 11.0.0.0/8 as though it were rfc1918. The actual issue is that the 11/8 block is not one of the three RFC1918 private ranges.
The entire 10/8 block is private IPv4 space and is not globally internet-routed. The statement addresses a different mechanism. Here the engineer specifically proposed allocate 11.0.0.0/8 as though it were rfc1918; the decisive limitation is that the 11/8 block is not one of the three RFC1918 private ranges.
or Guarantee your success by buying the full version which covers the full latest pool of questions. (760 Questions, Last Updated on Nov 4, 2026)
Please check your mailbox for a message from support@examlabs.com and follow the directions.
