mcAfee Secure Website
23

HP HPE7-A08 Bundle

Exam Code: HPE7-A08

Exam Name HPE Network Switching Professional

Certification Provider: HP

Corresponding Certification: HPE Aruba Networking Certified Professional - Switching

HPE7-A08 Training Materials $19.99
Pass4sure Q&A Sample #1 Pass4sure Q&A Sample #2 Pass4sure Q&A Sample #3 Pass4sure Q&A Sample #4 Pass4sure Q&A Sample #5 Pass4sure Q&A Sample #6 Pass4sure Q&A Sample #7 Pass4sure Q&A Sample #8 Pass4sure Q&A Sample #9 Pass4sure Q&A Sample #10

Reliable & Actual Study Materials for HPE7-A08 Exam Success

The Latest HPE7-A08 Exam Questions as Experienced in the Actual Test!

  • 24
    Questions & Answers

    HPE7-A08 Questions & Answers

    172 Questions & Answers

    Includes questions types found on actual exam such as drag and drop, simulation, type in, and fill in the blank.

  • exam =30
    Study Guide

    HPE7-A08 Study Guide

    794 PDF Pages

    Study Guide developed by industry experts who have written exams in the past. They are technology-specific IT certification researchers with at least a decade of experience at Fortune 500 companies.

exam =32

HPE Network Switching Professional (HPE7-A08) Practice Tests

Guarantee

Satisfaction Guaranteed

Pass4sure has a remarkable HP Candidate Success record. We're confident of our products and provide no hassle product exchange. That's how confident we are!

99.3% Pass Rate
Total Cost: $154.98
Bundle Price: $134.99

Purchase Individually

  • exam =34
    Questions & Answers

    Questions & Answers

    172 Questions

    $124.99
    exam =35
  • exam =36
    Study Guide

    Study Guide

    794 PDF Pages

    $29.99

HP HPE7-A08 Practice Test 29

Question 280

The HPE AOS-CX switching case is: A distribution route is accepted from a neighbor but the return route is missing in another routing domain. Select TWO: a corrective switching action and separate evidence that the correction worked. (Select TWO.)

  1. Establish compatible OSPF process, area, interface and adjacency parameters before relying on dynamic campus route convergence.
  2. Configure supported BGP neighbor reachability, autonomous system relationships and explicit route import/export controls for the actual topology.
  3. Peer neighbor state reaches the expected adjacency and learned routes survive an approved uplink failure test.
  4. Two tenant tests confirm expected isolation and any explicitly approved shared service is reachable under policy.
  5. Configure consistent active-gateway addresses and VMACs across supported VSX peers and confirm ISL and keepalive health.

Explanation

Correct Answers

A:

The targeted correction for A distribution route is accepted from a neighbor but the return route is missing in another routing domain is: Establish compatible OSPF process, area, interface and adjacency parameters before relying on dynamic campus route convergence. It reduces the risk that an OSPF neighbor mismatch can leave a physical link working while required prefixes never populate the routing table.

C:

A separate operational validation for A distribution route is accepted from a neighbor but the return route is missing in another routing domain is: Peer neighbor state reaches the expected adjacency and learned routes survive an approved uplink failure test. It proves intended behavior instead of accepting configuration presence alone.

Incorrect Answers

B:

This alternative concerns bgp peering and route policy boundaries; its associated risk is: An established BGP session does not by itself prove that correct prefixes are advertised or accepted without leaks. The observed case A distribution route is accepted from a neighbor but the return route is missing in another routing domain requires the more specific ospf area and neighbor formation control. The targeted action is: Establish compatible OSPF process, area, interface and adjacency parameters before relying on dynamic campus route convergence.

D:

This alternative concerns vrf segmentation and route leaking control; its associated risk is: Treating VRFs as one shared table can leak restricted networks or leave permitted traffic with no route. The observed case A distribution route is accepted from a neighbor but the return route is missing in another routing domain requires the more specific ospf area and neighbor formation control. The targeted action is: Establish compatible OSPF process, area, interface and adjacency parameters before relying on dynamic campus route convergence.

E:

This alternative concerns vsx active gateway and distributed forwarding; its associated risk is: Inconsistent virtual gateways or failed peer topology can cause duplicate-gateway confusion and asymmetric forwarding. The observed case A distribution route is accepted from a neighbor but the return route is missing in another routing domain requires the more specific ospf area and neighbor formation control. The targeted action is: Establish compatible OSPF process, area, interface and adjacency parameters before relying on dynamic campus route convergence.

Question 281

An HPE Aruba Networking engineer observes: A branch border forms BGP neighbor TCP connectivity but advertises no approved campus routes. The corrective solution must keep intended connectivity, segmentation, and operational resilience. Which change best addresses the observed switching requirement?

  1. Define next hops and route preferences using the intended VRF and reachable paths, then check both forward and reverse reachability.
  2. Configure supported BGP neighbor reachability, autonomous system relationships and explicit route import/export controls for the actual topology.
  3. Keep tenant or management routing tables in intended VRFs and define explicit supported inter-VRF reachability only when authorized.
  4. Configure consistent active-gateway addresses and VMACs across supported VSX peers and confirm ISL and keepalive health.

Explanation

Correct Answer

B:

The decisive observed condition is: A branch border forms BGP neighbor TCP connectivity but advertises no approved campus routes. The appropriate switching action is: Configure supported BGP neighbor reachability, autonomous system relationships and explicit route import/export controls for the actual topology. It addresses the risk that an established BGP session does not by itself prove that correct prefixes are advertised or accepted without leaks. Confirm with: The routing policy test checks permitted learned and advertised prefixes and rejects disallowed networks.

Incorrect Answers

A:

This alternative concerns static route preference and default path; its associated risk is: A default route pointing to an unreachable gateway or unintended VRF can blackhole otherwise correctly switched traffic. The observed case A branch border forms BGP neighbor TCP connectivity but advertises no approved campus routes requires the more specific bgp peering and route policy boundaries control. The targeted action is: Configure supported BGP neighbor reachability, autonomous system relationships and explicit route import/export controls for the actual topology.

C:

This alternative concerns vrf segmentation and route leaking control; its associated risk is: Treating VRFs as one shared table can leak restricted networks or leave permitted traffic with no route. The observed case A branch border forms BGP neighbor TCP connectivity but advertises no approved campus routes requires the more specific bgp peering and route policy boundaries control. The targeted action is: Configure supported BGP neighbor reachability, autonomous system relationships and explicit route import/export controls for the actual topology.

D:

This alternative concerns vsx active gateway and distributed forwarding; its associated risk is: Inconsistent virtual gateways or failed peer topology can cause duplicate-gateway confusion and asymmetric forwarding. The observed case A branch border forms BGP neighbor TCP connectivity but advertises no approved campus routes requires the more specific bgp peering and route policy boundaries control. The targeted action is: Configure supported BGP neighbor reachability, autonomous system relationships and explicit route import/export controls for the actual topology.

Question 282

An engineer investigates: A branch border forms BGP neighbor TCP connectivity but advertises no approved campus routes. Which verification proves the intended operational state rather than just a saved configuration?

  1. Host failover tests preserve gateway reachability when either designated VSX peer uplink is removed.
  2. The routing policy test checks permitted learned and advertised prefixes and rejects disallowed networks.
  3. Two tenant tests confirm expected isolation and any explicitly approved shared service is reachable under policy.
  4. A route-table and traceroute check confirms the selected prefix, reachable next hop and bidirectional service flow.

Explanation

Correct Answer

B:

The independent acceptance evidence for A branch border forms BGP neighbor TCP connectivity but advertises no approved campus routes is: The routing policy test checks permitted learned and advertised prefixes and rejects disallowed networks. It tests whether the team has actually implemented: Configure supported BGP neighbor reachability, autonomous system relationships and explicit route import/export controls for the actual topology. An enabled interface or saved configuration by itself is not evidence of complete service recovery.

Incorrect Answers

A:

This alternative concerns vsx active gateway and distributed forwarding; its associated risk is: Inconsistent virtual gateways or failed peer topology can cause duplicate-gateway confusion and asymmetric forwarding. The observed case A branch border forms BGP neighbor TCP connectivity but advertises no approved campus routes requires the more specific bgp peering and route policy boundaries control. The targeted action is: Configure supported BGP neighbor reachability, autonomous system relationships and explicit route import/export controls for the actual topology.

C:

This alternative concerns vrf segmentation and route leaking control; its associated risk is: Treating VRFs as one shared table can leak restricted networks or leave permitted traffic with no route. The observed case A branch border forms BGP neighbor TCP connectivity but advertises no approved campus routes requires the more specific bgp peering and route policy boundaries control. The targeted action is: Configure supported BGP neighbor reachability, autonomous system relationships and explicit route import/export controls for the actual topology.

D:

This alternative concerns static route preference and default path; its associated risk is: A default route pointing to an unreachable gateway or unintended VRF can blackhole otherwise correctly switched traffic. The observed case A branch border forms BGP neighbor TCP connectivity but advertises no approved campus routes requires the more specific bgp peering and route policy boundaries control. The targeted action is: Configure supported BGP neighbor reachability, autonomous system relationships and explicit route import/export controls for the actual topology.

Question 283

An HPE Aruba Networking engineer observes: An engineer sets a peer AS number that differs from the remote BGP process. The corrective solution must keep intended connectivity, segmentation, and operational resilience. What is the most defensible operational action before closing the network change?

  1. Configure consistent active-gateway addresses and VMACs across supported VSX peers and confirm ISL and keepalive health.
  2. Keep tenant or management routing tables in intended VRFs and define explicit supported inter-VRF reachability only when authorized.
  3. Establish compatible OSPF process, area, interface and adjacency parameters before relying on dynamic campus route convergence.
  4. Configure supported BGP neighbor reachability, autonomous system relationships and explicit route import/export controls for the actual topology.

Explanation

Correct Answer

D:

The decisive observed condition is: An engineer sets a peer AS number that differs from the remote BGP process. The appropriate switching action is: Configure supported BGP neighbor reachability, autonomous system relationships and explicit route import/export controls for the actual topology. It addresses the risk that an established BGP session does not by itself prove that correct prefixes are advertised or accepted without leaks. Confirm with: The routing policy test checks permitted learned and advertised prefixes and rejects disallowed networks.

Incorrect Answers

A:

This alternative concerns vsx active gateway and distributed forwarding; its associated risk is: Inconsistent virtual gateways or failed peer topology can cause duplicate-gateway confusion and asymmetric forwarding. The observed case An engineer sets a peer AS number that differs from the remote BGP process requires the more specific bgp peering and route policy boundaries control. The targeted action is: Configure supported BGP neighbor reachability, autonomous system relationships and explicit route import/export controls for the actual topology.

B:

This alternative concerns vrf segmentation and route leaking control; its associated risk is: Treating VRFs as one shared table can leak restricted networks or leave permitted traffic with no route. The observed case An engineer sets a peer AS number that differs from the remote BGP process requires the more specific bgp peering and route policy boundaries control. The targeted action is: Configure supported BGP neighbor reachability, autonomous system relationships and explicit route import/export controls for the actual topology.

C:

This alternative concerns ospf area and neighbor formation; its associated risk is: An OSPF neighbor mismatch can leave a physical link working while required prefixes never populate the routing table. The observed case An engineer sets a peer AS number that differs from the remote BGP process requires the more specific bgp peering and route policy boundaries control. The targeted action is: Configure supported BGP neighbor reachability, autonomous system relationships and explicit route import/export controls for the actual topology.

Question 284

The switch operations team reports: An engineer sets a peer AS number that differs from the remote BGP process. What adverse switching behavior should the engineer anticipate?

  1. Inconsistent virtual gateways or failed peer topology can cause duplicate-gateway confusion and asymmetric forwarding.
  2. Treating VRFs as one shared table can leak restricted networks or leave permitted traffic with no route.
  3. An OSPF neighbor mismatch can leave a physical link working while required prefixes never populate the routing table.
  4. An established BGP session does not by itself prove that correct prefixes are advertised or accepted without leaks.

Explanation

Correct Answer

D:

The direct operational failure mode is: An established BGP session does not by itself prove that correct prefixes are advertised or accepted without leaks. It applies to the condition An engineer sets a peer AS number that differs from the remote BGP process. The suitable corrective action is: Configure supported BGP neighbor reachability, autonomous system relationships and explicit route import/export controls for the actual topology. Independently validate using: The routing policy test checks permitted learned and advertised prefixes and rejects disallowed networks.

Incorrect Answers

A:

This alternative concerns vsx active gateway and distributed forwarding; its associated risk is: Inconsistent virtual gateways or failed peer topology can cause duplicate-gateway confusion and asymmetric forwarding. The observed case An engineer sets a peer AS number that differs from the remote BGP process requires the more specific bgp peering and route policy boundaries control. The targeted action is: Configure supported BGP neighbor reachability, autonomous system relationships and explicit route import/export controls for the actual topology.

B:

This alternative concerns vrf segmentation and route leaking control; its associated risk is: Treating VRFs as one shared table can leak restricted networks or leave permitted traffic with no route. The observed case An engineer sets a peer AS number that differs from the remote BGP process requires the more specific bgp peering and route policy boundaries control. The targeted action is: Configure supported BGP neighbor reachability, autonomous system relationships and explicit route import/export controls for the actual topology.

C:

This alternative concerns ospf area and neighbor formation; its associated risk is: An OSPF neighbor mismatch can leave a physical link working while required prefixes never populate the routing table. The observed case An engineer sets a peer AS number that differs from the remote BGP process requires the more specific bgp peering and route policy boundaries control. The targeted action is: Configure supported BGP neighbor reachability, autonomous system relationships and explicit route import/export controls for the actual topology.

Question 285

An HPE Aruba Networking engineer observes: A policy exports a private management subnet to an external upstream neighbor accidentally. The corrective solution must keep intended connectivity, segmentation, and operational resilience. Which implementation or troubleshooting step directly resolves the specific network issue?

  1. Define next hops and route preferences using the intended VRF and reachable paths, then check both forward and reverse reachability.
  2. Establish compatible OSPF process, area, interface and adjacency parameters before relying on dynamic campus route convergence.
  3. Configure supported BGP neighbor reachability, autonomous system relationships and explicit route import/export controls for the actual topology.
  4. Configure consistent active-gateway addresses and VMACs across supported VSX peers and confirm ISL and keepalive health.

Explanation

Correct Answer

C:

The decisive observed condition is: A policy exports a private management subnet to an external upstream neighbor accidentally. The appropriate switching action is: Configure supported BGP neighbor reachability, autonomous system relationships and explicit route import/export controls for the actual topology. It addresses the risk that an established BGP session does not by itself prove that correct prefixes are advertised or accepted without leaks. Confirm with: The routing policy test checks permitted learned and advertised prefixes and rejects disallowed networks.

Incorrect Answers

A:

This alternative concerns static route preference and default path; its associated risk is: A default route pointing to an unreachable gateway or unintended VRF can blackhole otherwise correctly switched traffic. The observed case A policy exports a private management subnet to an external upstream neighbor accidentally requires the more specific bgp peering and route policy boundaries control. The targeted action is: Configure supported BGP neighbor reachability, autonomous system relationships and explicit route import/export controls for the actual topology.

B:

This alternative concerns ospf area and neighbor formation; its associated risk is: An OSPF neighbor mismatch can leave a physical link working while required prefixes never populate the routing table. The observed case A policy exports a private management subnet to an external upstream neighbor accidentally requires the more specific bgp peering and route policy boundaries control. The targeted action is: Configure supported BGP neighbor reachability, autonomous system relationships and explicit route import/export controls for the actual topology.

D:

This alternative concerns vsx active gateway and distributed forwarding; its associated risk is: Inconsistent virtual gateways or failed peer topology can cause duplicate-gateway confusion and asymmetric forwarding. The observed case A policy exports a private management subnet to an external upstream neighbor accidentally requires the more specific bgp peering and route policy boundaries control. The targeted action is: Configure supported BGP neighbor reachability, autonomous system relationships and explicit route import/export controls for the actual topology.

Question 286

An engineer investigates: A policy exports a private management subnet to an external upstream neighbor accidentally. Which verification proves the intended operational state rather than just a saved configuration?

  1. A route-table and traceroute check confirms the selected prefix, reachable next hop and bidirectional service flow.
  2. Peer neighbor state reaches the expected adjacency and learned routes survive an approved uplink failure test.
  3. Host failover tests preserve gateway reachability when either designated VSX peer uplink is removed.
  4. The routing policy test checks permitted learned and advertised prefixes and rejects disallowed networks.

Explanation

Correct Answer

D:

The independent acceptance evidence for A policy exports a private management subnet to an external upstream neighbor accidentally is: The routing policy test checks permitted learned and advertised prefixes and rejects disallowed networks. It tests whether the team has actually implemented: Configure supported BGP neighbor reachability, autonomous system relationships and explicit route import/export controls for the actual topology. An enabled interface or saved configuration by itself is not evidence of complete service recovery.

Incorrect Answers

A:

This alternative concerns static route preference and default path; its associated risk is: A default route pointing to an unreachable gateway or unintended VRF can blackhole otherwise correctly switched traffic. The observed case A policy exports a private management subnet to an external upstream neighbor accidentally requires the more specific bgp peering and route policy boundaries control. The targeted action is: Configure supported BGP neighbor reachability, autonomous system relationships and explicit route import/export controls for the actual topology.

B:

This alternative concerns ospf area and neighbor formation; its associated risk is: An OSPF neighbor mismatch can leave a physical link working while required prefixes never populate the routing table. The observed case A policy exports a private management subnet to an external upstream neighbor accidentally requires the more specific bgp peering and route policy boundaries control. The targeted action is: Configure supported BGP neighbor reachability, autonomous system relationships and explicit route import/export controls for the actual topology.

C:

This alternative concerns vsx active gateway and distributed forwarding; its associated risk is: Inconsistent virtual gateways or failed peer topology can cause duplicate-gateway confusion and asymmetric forwarding. The observed case A policy exports a private management subnet to an external upstream neighbor accidentally requires the more specific bgp peering and route policy boundaries control. The targeted action is: Configure supported BGP neighbor reachability, autonomous system relationships and explicit route import/export controls for the actual topology.

Question 287

An HPE Aruba Networking engineer observes: A newly configured route map denies all useful prefixes after a BGP session becomes established. The corrective solution must keep intended connectivity, segmentation, and operational resilience. Which response best satisfies the technical requirement without disrupting unrelated traffic?

  1. Establish compatible OSPF process, area, interface and adjacency parameters before relying on dynamic campus route convergence.
  2. Define next hops and route preferences using the intended VRF and reachable paths, then check both forward and reverse reachability.
  3. Configure supported BGP neighbor reachability, autonomous system relationships and explicit route import/export controls for the actual topology.
  4. Configure consistent active-gateway addresses and VMACs across supported VSX peers and confirm ISL and keepalive health.

Explanation

Correct Answer

C:

The decisive observed condition is: A newly configured route map denies all useful prefixes after a BGP session becomes established. The appropriate switching action is: Configure supported BGP neighbor reachability, autonomous system relationships and explicit route import/export controls for the actual topology. It addresses the risk that an established BGP session does not by itself prove that correct prefixes are advertised or accepted without leaks. Confirm with: The routing policy test checks permitted learned and advertised prefixes and rejects disallowed networks.

Incorrect Answers

A:

This alternative concerns ospf area and neighbor formation; its associated risk is: An OSPF neighbor mismatch can leave a physical link working while required prefixes never populate the routing table. The observed case A newly configured route map denies all useful prefixes after a BGP session becomes established requires the more specific bgp peering and route policy boundaries control. The targeted action is: Configure supported BGP neighbor reachability, autonomous system relationships and explicit route import/export controls for the actual topology.

B:

This alternative concerns static route preference and default path; its associated risk is: A default route pointing to an unreachable gateway or unintended VRF can blackhole otherwise correctly switched traffic. The observed case A newly configured route map denies all useful prefixes after a BGP session becomes established requires the more specific bgp peering and route policy boundaries control. The targeted action is: Configure supported BGP neighbor reachability, autonomous system relationships and explicit route import/export controls for the actual topology.

D:

This alternative concerns vsx active gateway and distributed forwarding; its associated risk is: Inconsistent virtual gateways or failed peer topology can cause duplicate-gateway confusion and asymmetric forwarding. The observed case A newly configured route map denies all useful prefixes after a BGP session becomes established requires the more specific bgp peering and route policy boundaries control. The targeted action is: Configure supported BGP neighbor reachability, autonomous system relationships and explicit route import/export controls for the actual topology.

Question 288

The switch operations team reports: A newly configured route map denies all useful prefixes after a BGP session becomes established. What adverse switching behavior should the engineer anticipate?

  1. An OSPF neighbor mismatch can leave a physical link working while required prefixes never populate the routing table.
  2. A default route pointing to an unreachable gateway or unintended VRF can blackhole otherwise correctly switched traffic.
  3. Inconsistent virtual gateways or failed peer topology can cause duplicate-gateway confusion and asymmetric forwarding.
  4. An established BGP session does not by itself prove that correct prefixes are advertised or accepted without leaks.

Explanation

Correct Answer

D:

The direct operational failure mode is: An established BGP session does not by itself prove that correct prefixes are advertised or accepted without leaks. It applies to the condition A newly configured route map denies all useful prefixes after a BGP session becomes established. The suitable corrective action is: Configure supported BGP neighbor reachability, autonomous system relationships and explicit route import/export controls for the actual topology. Independently validate using: The routing policy test checks permitted learned and advertised prefixes and rejects disallowed networks.

Incorrect Answers

A:

This alternative concerns ospf area and neighbor formation; its associated risk is: An OSPF neighbor mismatch can leave a physical link working while required prefixes never populate the routing table. The observed case A newly configured route map denies all useful prefixes after a BGP session becomes established requires the more specific bgp peering and route policy boundaries control. The targeted action is: Configure supported BGP neighbor reachability, autonomous system relationships and explicit route import/export controls for the actual topology.

B:

This alternative concerns static route preference and default path; its associated risk is: A default route pointing to an unreachable gateway or unintended VRF can blackhole otherwise correctly switched traffic. The observed case A newly configured route map denies all useful prefixes after a BGP session becomes established requires the more specific bgp peering and route policy boundaries control. The targeted action is: Configure supported BGP neighbor reachability, autonomous system relationships and explicit route import/export controls for the actual topology.

C:

This alternative concerns vsx active gateway and distributed forwarding; its associated risk is: Inconsistent virtual gateways or failed peer topology can cause duplicate-gateway confusion and asymmetric forwarding. The observed case A newly configured route map denies all useful prefixes after a BGP session becomes established requires the more specific bgp peering and route policy boundaries control. The targeted action is: Configure supported BGP neighbor reachability, autonomous system relationships and explicit route import/export controls for the actual topology.

Question 289

An HPE Aruba Networking engineer observes: A switch interface is placed in a guest VRF while the DHCP relay target is reachable only in a separate management VRF. The corrective solution must keep intended connectivity, segmentation, and operational resilience. Which change best addresses the observed switching requirement?

  1. Configure supported BGP neighbor reachability, autonomous system relationships and explicit route import/export controls for the actual topology.
  2. Establish compatible OSPF process, area, interface and adjacency parameters before relying on dynamic campus route convergence.
  3. Keep tenant or management routing tables in intended VRFs and define explicit supported inter-VRF reachability only when authorized.
  4. Configure an SVI with a valid VLAN, IP prefix and forwarding state on a supported AOS-CX platform to route traffic between authorized networks.

Explanation

Correct Answer

C:

The decisive observed condition is: A switch interface is placed in a guest VRF while the DHCP relay target is reachable only in a separate management VRF. The appropriate switching action is: Keep tenant or management routing tables in intended VRFs and define explicit supported inter-VRF reachability only when authorized. It addresses the risk that treating VRFs as one shared table can leak restricted networks or leave permitted traffic with no route. Confirm with: Two tenant tests confirm expected isolation and any explicitly approved shared service is reachable under policy.

Incorrect Answers

A:

This alternative concerns bgp peering and route policy boundaries; its associated risk is: An established BGP session does not by itself prove that correct prefixes are advertised or accepted without leaks. The observed case A switch interface is placed in a guest VRF while the DHCP relay target is reachable only in a separate management VRF requires the more specific vrf segmentation and route leaking control control. The targeted action is: Keep tenant or management routing tables in intended VRFs and define explicit supported inter-VRF reachability only when authorized.

B:

This alternative concerns ospf area and neighbor formation; its associated risk is: An OSPF neighbor mismatch can leave a physical link working while required prefixes never populate the routing table. The observed case A switch interface is placed in a guest VRF while the DHCP relay target is reachable only in a separate management VRF requires the more specific vrf segmentation and route leaking control control. The targeted action is: Keep tenant or management routing tables in intended VRFs and define explicit supported inter-VRF reachability only when authorized.

D:

This alternative concerns svi addressing and inter-vlan routing; its associated risk is: Duplicate gateways or mismatched prefix lengths can make hosts reachable only locally or create asymmetric routing. The observed case A switch interface is placed in a guest VRF while the DHCP relay target is reachable only in a separate management VRF requires the more specific vrf segmentation and route leaking control control. The targeted action is: Keep tenant or management routing tables in intended VRFs and define explicit supported inter-VRF reachability only when authorized.

Question 290

The HPE AOS-CX switching case is: A switch interface is placed in a guest VRF while the DHCP relay target is reachable only in a separate management VRF. Which TWO choices together provide the targeted remedy and independent validation? (Select TWO.)

  1. Routing and ARP or neighbor tests prove two permitted VLANs reach the intended gateways and return paths.
  2. Configure supported BGP neighbor reachability, autonomous system relationships and explicit route import/export controls for the actual topology.
  3. Keep tenant or management routing tables in intended VRFs and define explicit supported inter-VRF reachability only when authorized.
  4. Establish compatible OSPF process, area, interface and adjacency parameters before relying on dynamic campus route convergence.
  5. Two tenant tests confirm expected isolation and any explicitly approved shared service is reachable under policy.

Explanation

Correct Answers

C:

The targeted correction for A switch interface is placed in a guest VRF while the DHCP relay target is reachable only in a separate management VRF is: Keep tenant or management routing tables in intended VRFs and define explicit supported inter-VRF reachability only when authorized. It reduces the risk that treating VRFs as one shared table can leak restricted networks or leave permitted traffic with no route.

E:

A separate operational validation for A switch interface is placed in a guest VRF while the DHCP relay target is reachable only in a separate management VRF is: Two tenant tests confirm expected isolation and any explicitly approved shared service is reachable under policy. It proves intended behavior instead of accepting configuration presence alone.

Incorrect Answers

A:

This alternative concerns svi addressing and inter-vlan routing; its associated risk is: Duplicate gateways or mismatched prefix lengths can make hosts reachable only locally or create asymmetric routing. The observed case A switch interface is placed in a guest VRF while the DHCP relay target is reachable only in a separate management VRF requires the more specific vrf segmentation and route leaking control control. The targeted action is: Keep tenant or management routing tables in intended VRFs and define explicit supported inter-VRF reachability only when authorized.

B:

This alternative concerns bgp peering and route policy boundaries; its associated risk is: An established BGP session does not by itself prove that correct prefixes are advertised or accepted without leaks. The observed case A switch interface is placed in a guest VRF while the DHCP relay target is reachable only in a separate management VRF requires the more specific vrf segmentation and route leaking control control. The targeted action is: Keep tenant or management routing tables in intended VRFs and define explicit supported inter-VRF reachability only when authorized.

D:

This alternative concerns ospf area and neighbor formation; its associated risk is: An OSPF neighbor mismatch can leave a physical link working while required prefixes never populate the routing table. The observed case A switch interface is placed in a guest VRF while the DHCP relay target is reachable only in a separate management VRF requires the more specific vrf segmentation and route leaking control control. The targeted action is: Keep tenant or management routing tables in intended VRFs and define explicit supported inter-VRF reachability only when authorized.