Cisco SPCOR 350-501 study plan
Cisco SPCOR 350-501 · Give each week a clear focus.
8 weeks · About 7 hours per week
Networking
Configure and verify OSPFv2 multi-area adjacencies, including ABR/ASBR roles, virtual links, and LSA type filtering on a three-router lab.
Design and validate a BGP peering topology with eBGP and iBGP neighbors, route reflectors, and prefix-list/route-map policy enforcement.
Compare IS-IS Level 1/Level 2 behavior and configure a basic multi-level IS-IS domain to observe L1-to-L2 redistribution.
Troubleshoot a broken OSPF neighbor adjacency and a BGP session stuck in Active/Idle using show/debug output only.
Your checkpoint
A written lab report with topology diagram, show-command captures, and a one-page root-cause analysis for each of the two injected faults.
Networking
Implement and compare MPLS L3VPN, VRF-lite, and route leaking between VRFs on a service-provider edge topology.
Configure segment routing (SR-MPLS) with an IGP, verify prefix and adjacency SID behavior, and compare it with LDP-based label distribution.
Build a multicast distribution tree using PIM-SM with a rendezvous point and verify source registration and SPT switchover.
Apply QoS classification, marking, and queuing policies on provider edge interfaces and measure their effect on a simulated voice stream.
Your checkpoint
A working multi-VRF topology with a verification checklist (20+ checks) covering VPN label imposition, SR SID reachability, PIM state, and QoS counters.
MPLS
Configure LDP and RSVP-TE label-switched paths, then compare their signaling, path control, and failure behavior.
Implement MPLS Traffic Engineering with explicit paths, affinity constraints, and fast reroute (FRR) protection.
Deploy an L3VPN using MP-BGP with route targets, verify VRF route import/export, and test customer route isolation.
Diagnose a label mismatch and a PHP (penultimate hop popping) issue using label stack traces and MPLS OAM commands.
Your checkpoint
A comparative table plus lab evidence showing LDP vs. RSVP-TE vs. SR-MPLS path setup, failover timing, and label stack depth for the same topology.
MPLS & Architecture
Explain and configure inter-AS VPN options A, B, and C on a two-carrier topology, documenting the control-plane differences.
Design a hierarchical network architecture using Cisco valid design principles (core/distribution/access, modularity, summarization boundaries).
Configure MPLS L2VPN (AToM) and VPLS pseudowires and verify MAC learning and split-horizon behavior.
Evaluate high-availability design choices (NSF/SSO, BFD, TI-LFA) and select the appropriate mechanism for three stated failure scenarios.
Your checkpoint
An architecture decision record (ADR) of 800+ words covering inter-AS option choice, HA mechanism selection, and L2VPN design, with supporting lab output.
Services
Configure and verify a full-featured branch: DHCP, NAT/PAT, PPPoE, and QoS on a single router.
Implement a site-to-site IPsec VPN and a DMVPN Phase 3 hub-and-spoke topology, then compare scalability and encryption behavior.
Configure a GRE tunnel and a VTI, and explain when each is preferred over the other in a service-provider context.
Apply SNMP, Syslog, and NetFlow on a service edge and validate that telemetry records reach a collector.
Your checkpoint
A branch-services runbook with configuration snippets and a verification matrix confirming each service (DHCP, NAT, IPsec, DMVPN, telemetry) works end to end.
Services & Architecture
Deploy Cisco SD-WAN control-plane and data-plane components in a lab (vManage, vSmart, vBond, vEdge/cEdge) and verify overlay tunnel establishment.
Configure SD-WAN application-aware routing and a localized data policy, then observe path selection changes under an injected latency condition.
Describe Cisco SD-Access fabric roles (control plane, border, edge) and configure a basic fabric site in a simulated environment.
Map a stated enterprise requirement to an SD-WAN vs. SD-Access vs. traditional WAN design, justifying the choice.
Your checkpoint
A design comparison document (600+ words) with lab screenshots of SD-WAN overlay and fabric states, plus a justified recommendation for the stated requirement.
Automation and Assurance
Write and run Python scripts using NETCONF/RESTCONF and YANG models to retrieve and modify device configuration.
Build an Ansible playbook that pushes a standardized interface configuration to three devices and reports idempotency.
Use model-driven telemetry (gNMI/gRPC) to stream interface counters to a collector and visualize the data.
Automate a compliance check that compares running configuration against a golden template and flags drift.
Your checkpoint
A Git repository containing a Python script, an Ansible playbook, and a telemetry collector config, with a README showing successful execution output for each.
Automation and Assurance & Architecture & Networking
Integrate assurance tooling (Cisco DNA Center or equivalent) to run a health check and interpret assurance findings for a lab network.
Design an automation and assurance architecture that covers configuration management, telemetry, and closed-loop remediation for a stated scenario.
Complete two timed full-length practice exams and score each domain to identify remaining gaps.
Re-mediate the two weakest domains with targeted labs and document the fix for each missed objective.
Your checkpoint
A personal gap-analysis spreadsheet with practice-exam scores by domain, remediation notes, and a final one-page architecture summary tying automation and assurance to the overall design.
Milestones
Week 2: Can configure, verify, and troubleshoot OSPF, BGP, IS-IS, MPLS L3VPN, SR-MPLS, PIM-SM, and QoS from memory in a lab, with a completed verification checklist and no unresolved faults.
Week 4: Can explain and demonstrate LDP vs. RSVP-TE vs. SR-MPLS, inter-AS options A/B/C, and HA mechanism selection, supported by the comparative table and ADR.
Week 6: Can deploy branch services (DHCP, NAT, IPsec, DMVPN, telemetry) and SD-WAN/SD-Access fabric components end to end, with runbook and design comparison complete.
Week 8: Scores at or above 80% on both timed practice exams, with every domain at or above 70% and a documented remediation plan for any remaining weak area.