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 30

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.

Question 291

An HPE Aruba Networking engineer observes: An engineer assumes a default VRF route automatically appears in every tenant's route table. The corrective solution must keep intended connectivity, segmentation, and operational resilience. What is the most defensible operational action before closing the network change?

  1. Keep tenant or management routing tables in intended VRFs and define explicit supported inter-VRF reachability only when authorized.
  2. Configure consistent active-gateway addresses and VMACs across supported VSX peers and confirm ISL and keepalive health.
  3. Configure an SVI with a valid VLAN, IP prefix and forwarding state on a supported AOS-CX platform to route traffic between authorized networks.
  4. Define next hops and route preferences using the intended VRF and reachable paths, then check both forward and reverse reachability.

Explanation

Correct Answer

A:

The decisive observed condition is: An engineer assumes a default VRF route automatically appears in every tenant's route table. 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

B:

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 assumes a default VRF route automatically appears in every tenant's route table 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.

C:

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 An engineer assumes a default VRF route automatically appears in every tenant's route table 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 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 An engineer assumes a default VRF route automatically appears in every tenant's route table 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 292

The switch operations team reports: An engineer assumes a default VRF route automatically appears in every tenant's route table. Which failure or service risk most directly follows from leaving this condition uncorrected?

  1. Treating VRFs as one shared table can leak restricted networks or leave permitted traffic with no route.
  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. Duplicate gateways or mismatched prefix lengths can make hosts reachable only locally or create asymmetric routing.

Explanation

Correct Answer

A:

The direct operational failure mode is: Treating VRFs as one shared table can leak restricted networks or leave permitted traffic with no route. It applies to the condition An engineer assumes a default VRF route automatically appears in every tenant's route table. The suitable corrective action is: Keep tenant or management routing tables in intended VRFs and define explicit supported inter-VRF reachability only when authorized. Independently validate using: Two tenant tests confirm expected isolation and any explicitly approved shared service is reachable under policy.

Incorrect Answers

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 An engineer assumes a default VRF route automatically appears in every tenant's route table 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.

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 An engineer assumes a default VRF route automatically appears in every tenant's route table 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 An engineer assumes a default VRF route automatically appears in every tenant's route table 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 293

An HPE Aruba Networking engineer observes: A compliance review finds payroll and visitor networks use the same unsegmented routing table unexpectedly. The corrective solution must keep intended connectivity, segmentation, and operational resilience. Which implementation or troubleshooting step directly resolves the specific network issue?

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

Explanation

Correct Answer

A:

The decisive observed condition is: A compliance review finds payroll and visitor networks use the same unsegmented routing table unexpectedly. 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

B:

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 compliance review finds payroll and visitor networks use the same unsegmented routing table unexpectedly 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.

C:

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 compliance review finds payroll and visitor networks use the same unsegmented routing table unexpectedly 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 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 compliance review finds payroll and visitor networks use the same unsegmented routing table unexpectedly 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 294

An engineer investigates: A compliance review finds payroll and visitor networks use the same unsegmented routing table unexpectedly. What acceptance evidence most directly demonstrates the correction succeeded?

  1. A route-table and traceroute check confirms the selected prefix, reachable next hop and bidirectional service flow.
  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. Host failover tests preserve gateway reachability when either designated VSX peer uplink is removed.

Explanation

Correct Answer

C:

The independent acceptance evidence for A compliance review finds payroll and visitor networks use the same unsegmented routing table unexpectedly is: Two tenant tests confirm expected isolation and any explicitly approved shared service is reachable under policy. It tests whether the team has actually implemented: Keep tenant or management routing tables in intended VRFs and define explicit supported inter-VRF reachability only when authorized. 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 compliance review finds payroll and visitor networks use the same unsegmented routing table unexpectedly 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 compliance review finds payroll and visitor networks use the same unsegmented routing table unexpectedly 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 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 compliance review finds payroll and visitor networks use the same unsegmented routing table unexpectedly 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 295

An HPE Aruba Networking engineer observes: A shared DNS service must be reachable from two isolated VRFs but no explicit approved reachability design exists. The corrective solution must keep intended connectivity, segmentation, and operational resilience. Which response best satisfies the technical requirement without disrupting unrelated traffic?

  1. Keep tenant or management routing tables in intended VRFs and define explicit supported inter-VRF reachability only when authorized.
  2. Configure consistent active-gateway addresses and VMACs across supported VSX peers and confirm ISL and keepalive health.
  3. Configure an SVI with a valid VLAN, IP prefix and forwarding state on a supported AOS-CX platform to route traffic between authorized networks.
  4. Configure supported BGP neighbor reachability, autonomous system relationships and explicit route import/export controls for the actual topology.

Explanation

Correct Answer

A:

The decisive observed condition is: A shared DNS service must be reachable from two isolated VRFs but no explicit approved reachability design exists. 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

B:

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 shared DNS service must be reachable from two isolated VRFs but no explicit approved reachability design exists 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.

C:

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 shared DNS service must be reachable from two isolated VRFs but no explicit approved reachability design exists 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 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 shared DNS service must be reachable from two isolated VRFs but no explicit approved reachability design exists 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 296

The switch operations team reports: A shared DNS service must be reachable from two isolated VRFs but no explicit approved reachability design exists. Which failure or service risk most directly follows from leaving this condition uncorrected?

  1. Treating VRFs as one shared table can leak restricted networks or leave permitted traffic with no route.
  2. Duplicate gateways or mismatched prefix lengths can make hosts reachable only locally or create asymmetric routing.
  3. An established BGP session does not by itself prove that correct prefixes are advertised or accepted without leaks.
  4. Inconsistent virtual gateways or failed peer topology can cause duplicate-gateway confusion and asymmetric forwarding.

Explanation

Correct Answer

A:

The direct operational failure mode is: Treating VRFs as one shared table can leak restricted networks or leave permitted traffic with no route. It applies to the condition A shared DNS service must be reachable from two isolated VRFs but no explicit approved reachability design exists. The suitable corrective action is: Keep tenant or management routing tables in intended VRFs and define explicit supported inter-VRF reachability only when authorized. Independently validate using: Two tenant tests confirm expected isolation and any explicitly approved shared service is reachable under policy.

Incorrect Answers

B:

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 shared DNS service must be reachable from two isolated VRFs but no explicit approved reachability design exists 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.

C:

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 shared DNS service must be reachable from two isolated VRFs but no explicit approved reachability design exists 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 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 shared DNS service must be reachable from two isolated VRFs but no explicit approved reachability design exists 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 297

An HPE Aruba Networking engineer observes: One VSX peer serves an active-gateway IP that differs from the other peer on the same user VLAN. The corrective solution must keep intended connectivity, segmentation, and operational resilience. Which change best addresses the observed switching requirement?

  1. Configure consistent active-gateway addresses and VMACs across supported VSX peers and confirm ISL and keepalive health.
  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 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

A:

The decisive observed condition is: One VSX peer serves an active-gateway IP that differs from the other peer on the same user VLAN. The appropriate switching action is: Configure consistent active-gateway addresses and VMACs across supported VSX peers and confirm ISL and keepalive health. It addresses the risk that inconsistent virtual gateways or failed peer topology can cause duplicate-gateway confusion and asymmetric forwarding. Confirm with: Host failover tests preserve gateway reachability when either designated VSX peer uplink is removed.

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 One VSX peer serves an active-gateway IP that differs from the other peer on the same user VLAN requires the more specific vsx active gateway and distributed forwarding control. The targeted action is: Configure consistent active-gateway addresses and VMACs across supported VSX peers and confirm ISL and keepalive health.

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 One VSX peer serves an active-gateway IP that differs from the other peer on the same user VLAN requires the more specific vsx active gateway and distributed forwarding control. The targeted action is: Configure consistent active-gateway addresses and VMACs across supported VSX peers and confirm ISL and keepalive health.

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 One VSX peer serves an active-gateway IP that differs from the other peer on the same user VLAN requires the more specific vsx active gateway and distributed forwarding control. The targeted action is: Configure consistent active-gateway addresses and VMACs across supported VSX peers and confirm ISL and keepalive health.

Question 298

An engineer investigates: One VSX peer serves an active-gateway IP that differs from the other peer on the same user VLAN. Which test would independently confirm expected switch behavior?

  1. The routing policy test checks permitted learned and advertised prefixes and rejects disallowed networks.
  2. Routing and ARP or neighbor tests prove two permitted VLANs reach the intended gateways and return paths.
  3. Host failover tests preserve gateway reachability when either designated VSX peer uplink is removed.
  4. Two tenant tests confirm expected isolation and any explicitly approved shared service is reachable under policy.

Explanation

Correct Answer

C:

The independent acceptance evidence for One VSX peer serves an active-gateway IP that differs from the other peer on the same user VLAN is: Host failover tests preserve gateway reachability when either designated VSX peer uplink is removed. It tests whether the team has actually implemented: Configure consistent active-gateway addresses and VMACs across supported VSX peers and confirm ISL and keepalive health. An enabled interface or saved configuration by itself is not evidence of complete service recovery.

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 One VSX peer serves an active-gateway IP that differs from the other peer on the same user VLAN requires the more specific vsx active gateway and distributed forwarding control. The targeted action is: Configure consistent active-gateway addresses and VMACs across supported VSX peers and confirm ISL and keepalive health.

B:

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 One VSX peer serves an active-gateway IP that differs from the other peer on the same user VLAN requires the more specific vsx active gateway and distributed forwarding control. The targeted action is: Configure consistent active-gateway addresses and VMACs across supported VSX peers and confirm ISL and keepalive health.

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 One VSX peer serves an active-gateway IP that differs from the other peer on the same user VLAN requires the more specific vsx active gateway and distributed forwarding control. The targeted action is: Configure consistent active-gateway addresses and VMACs across supported VSX peers and confirm ISL and keepalive health.

Question 299

An HPE Aruba Networking engineer observes: A maintenance team shuts the primary distribution uplink without testing whether the secondary peer forwards via the gateway. The corrective solution must keep intended connectivity, segmentation, and operational resilience. What is the most defensible operational action before closing the network change?

  1. Establish compatible OSPF process, area, interface and adjacency parameters before relying on dynamic campus route convergence.
  2. Keep tenant or management routing tables in intended VRFs and define explicit supported inter-VRF reachability only when authorized.
  3. Configure consistent active-gateway addresses and VMACs across supported VSX peers and confirm ISL and keepalive health.
  4. Define next hops and route preferences using the intended VRF and reachable paths, then check both forward and reverse reachability.

Explanation

Correct Answer

C:

The decisive observed condition is: A maintenance team shuts the primary distribution uplink without testing whether the secondary peer forwards via the gateway. The appropriate switching action is: Configure consistent active-gateway addresses and VMACs across supported VSX peers and confirm ISL and keepalive health. It addresses the risk that inconsistent virtual gateways or failed peer topology can cause duplicate-gateway confusion and asymmetric forwarding. Confirm with: Host failover tests preserve gateway reachability when either designated VSX peer uplink is removed.

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 maintenance team shuts the primary distribution uplink without testing whether the secondary peer forwards via the gateway requires the more specific vsx active gateway and distributed forwarding control. The targeted action is: Configure consistent active-gateway addresses and VMACs across supported VSX peers and confirm ISL and keepalive health.

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 A maintenance team shuts the primary distribution uplink without testing whether the secondary peer forwards via the gateway requires the more specific vsx active gateway and distributed forwarding control. The targeted action is: Configure consistent active-gateway addresses and VMACs across supported VSX peers and confirm ISL and keepalive health.

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 maintenance team shuts the primary distribution uplink without testing whether the secondary peer forwards via the gateway requires the more specific vsx active gateway and distributed forwarding control. The targeted action is: Configure consistent active-gateway addresses and VMACs across supported VSX peers and confirm ISL and keepalive health.

Question 300

The HPE AOS-CX switching case is: A maintenance team shuts the primary distribution uplink without testing whether the secondary peer forwards via the gateway. Select TWO: a corrective switching action and separate evidence that the correction worked. (Select TWO.)

  1. A route-table and traceroute check confirms the selected prefix, reachable next hop and bidirectional service flow.
  2. Configure consistent active-gateway addresses and VMACs across supported VSX peers and confirm ISL and keepalive health.
  3. Host failover tests preserve gateway reachability when either designated VSX peer uplink is removed.
  4. Keep tenant or management routing tables in intended VRFs and define explicit supported inter-VRF reachability only when authorized.
  5. Establish compatible OSPF process, area, interface and adjacency parameters before relying on dynamic campus route convergence.

Explanation

Correct Answers

B:

The targeted correction for A maintenance team shuts the primary distribution uplink without testing whether the secondary peer forwards via the gateway is: Configure consistent active-gateway addresses and VMACs across supported VSX peers and confirm ISL and keepalive health. It reduces the risk that inconsistent virtual gateways or failed peer topology can cause duplicate-gateway confusion and asymmetric forwarding.

C:

A separate operational validation for A maintenance team shuts the primary distribution uplink without testing whether the secondary peer forwards via the gateway is: Host failover tests preserve gateway reachability when either designated VSX peer uplink is removed. It proves intended behavior instead of accepting configuration presence alone.

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 maintenance team shuts the primary distribution uplink without testing whether the secondary peer forwards via the gateway requires the more specific vsx active gateway and distributed forwarding control. The targeted action is: Configure consistent active-gateway addresses and VMACs across supported VSX peers and confirm ISL and keepalive health.

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 maintenance team shuts the primary distribution uplink without testing whether the secondary peer forwards via the gateway requires the more specific vsx active gateway and distributed forwarding control. The targeted action is: Configure consistent active-gateway addresses and VMACs across supported VSX peers and confirm ISL and keepalive health.

E:

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 maintenance team shuts the primary distribution uplink without testing whether the secondary peer forwards via the gateway requires the more specific vsx active gateway and distributed forwarding control. The targeted action is: Configure consistent active-gateway addresses and VMACs across supported VSX peers and confirm ISL and keepalive health.