A company plans to implement intent-based networking in its campus infrastructure. Which design facilities a migrate from a traditional campus design to a programmer fabric designer?

Question

Options

• ALayer 2 access
• Bthree-tier
• Ctwo-tier
• Drouted access

• A
  3% (1)
• B
  3% (1)
• C
  9% (3)
• D
  85% (28)

Explanation

Routed Access as the Migration Path to Programmable Fabric

Routed access (D) is correct because it eliminates Spanning Tree Protocol (STP) dependencies and moves Layer 3 routing to the access layer, creating a foundation that aligns directly with Software-Defined Access (SD-Access) principles - Cisco's intent-based networking solution. By pushing routing to the edge, routed access establishes the IP-based, loop-free topology that programmable fabric designs like SD-Access require to function properly.

Why the distractors are wrong:

• Layer 2 access (A) relies heavily on STP and VLANs, creating dependencies that are incompatible with modern programmable fabric overlays
• Three-tier (B) is a traditional hierarchical model (core/distribution/access) that introduces unnecessary complexity and STP reliance, making fabric migration harder
• Two-tier (C) (collapsed core) still typically relies on Layer 2 at the access layer, sharing similar STP limitations that conflict with fabric requirements

Memory Tip: Think "Route to the Future" - Routed access = ready for programmable fabric. If routing reaches all the way to the access layer, you've eliminated Layer 2 loops and are one step away from SD-Access. Any design still dependent on STP at the access layer is a step backward, not forward.

No community discussion yet for this question.