Free Cisco 300-730 SVPN Actual Exam Questions - Question 11 Discussion

B imo, DNS is straightforward for directing large user loads without extra complexity.

Makes sense to rule out A since one profile per site wouldn’t really balance load across all 12 headends. D sounds more like a routing-level thing rather than user distribution for VPN sessions. That leaves B and C. If the infrastructure doesn’t explicitly mention AnyConnect native load balancing support, B is safer, as DNS load balancing can evenly direct users to different VPN headends just by resolving the VPN address differently. So I’d say B fits best here.

Probably B here since DNS-based load balancing can direct clients to different VPN headends without needing special network setups, making it scalable for 25,000 users across multiple sites.

Option B because DNS-based load balancing handles large user bases across multiple sites well.

D imo, because equal cost multipath load balancing is designed to distribute traffic evenly across multiple paths, which fits the idea of balancing loads across 12 VPN headends. It’s more about spreading the traffic at a network routing level rather than relying on client-side or DNS-based methods. DNS can help direct users but doesn’t guarantee steady distribution under heavy load, and AnyConnect native might not scale well to 25,000 users across so many sites. So D feels like the right technical fit for large-scale, multi-site VPN load balancing.

Guessing B here. DNS-based load balancing can handle a large number of users and spread them across multiple sites without needing complex routing setups. It’s less dependent on specific VPN client features or network topology, which makes it more flexible for 25,000 simultaneous connections. Plus, it doesn’t require the VPN headends to be tightly integrated like some other options might. That scale sounds like a good fit for DNS-level distribution rather than relying solely on the client or routing protocols.

Maybe D makes sense here since equal cost multipath routing is all about distributing traffic evenly across multiple gateways, which fits the idea of spreading load across 12 VPN headends. Unlike DNS-based methods, this works at the network layer and can handle real-time traffic distribution better. So for a high number of simultaneous users, it might offer more consistent performance.

Option B seems best since DNS-based load balancing can efficiently distribute users across many VPN headends without relying on specific device capabilities. It scales well for large user counts like 25,000.

Probably C here, since AnyConnect native load balancing is designed specifically for remote access VPNs and can handle user distribution smartly across multiple headends.

Maybe D, because equal cost multipath can spread traffic evenly across multiple paths.

It’s B, DNS-based load balancing handles large user loads best.