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 32

Question 310

The HPE AOS-CX switching case is: An operator treats IGMP membership as evidence that PIM routing between different subnets is automatically configured. Which TWO choices together provide the targeted remedy and independent validation? (Select TWO.)

  1. Use supported IGMP snooping and a proper querier to constrain layer-2 multicast to subscribed receiver ports.
  2. Differentiate supported ingress policing from egress shaping and confirm rate controls fit the actual traffic direction and SLA.
  3. Plan PIM-enabled supported routed interfaces, unicast RPF reachability and rendezvous-point requirements for cross-subnet multicast.
  4. One subscribed receiver receives the stream while an unsubscribed VLAN port is not flooded during the test.
  5. A controlled policy change remains effective after Central reconciliation and matches its intended device group and exceptions.

Explanation

Correct Answers

A:

The targeted correction for An operator treats IGMP membership as evidence that PIM routing between different subnets is automatically configured is: Use supported IGMP snooping and a proper querier to constrain layer-2 multicast to subscribed receiver ports. It reduces the risk that without valid membership state, multicast can flood unrelated access ports or fail to reach intended receivers.

D:

A separate operational validation for An operator treats IGMP membership as evidence that PIM routing between different subnets is automatically configured is: One subscribed receiver receives the stream while an unsubscribed VLAN port is not flooded during the test. It proves intended behavior instead of accepting configuration presence alone.

Incorrect Answers

B:

This alternative concerns qos policing shaping and trust verification; its associated risk is: A policer applied in the wrong direction can drop desired traffic, while shaping on the wrong interface does not alleviate the bottleneck. The observed case An operator treats IGMP membership as evidence that PIM routing between different subnets is automatically configured requires the more specific igmp snooping querier and multicast receiver membership control. The targeted action is: Use supported IGMP snooping and a proper querier to constrain layer-2 multicast to subscribed receiver ports.

C:

This alternative concerns pim sparse-mode and routed multicast control; its associated risk is: Correct IGMP join behavior at a receiver does not create an inter-VLAN multicast path without the appropriate routed multicast control plane. The observed case An operator treats IGMP membership as evidence that PIM routing between different subnets is automatically configured requires the more specific igmp snooping querier and multicast receiver membership control. The targeted action is: Use supported IGMP snooping and a proper querier to constrain layer-2 multicast to subscribed receiver ports.

E:

This alternative concerns central and aos-cx configuration consistency; its associated risk is: A local fix that conflicts with centrally enforced state can disappear on the next synchronization cycle. The observed case An operator treats IGMP membership as evidence that PIM routing between different subnets is automatically configured requires the more specific igmp snooping querier and multicast receiver membership control. The targeted action is: Use supported IGMP snooping and a proper querier to constrain layer-2 multicast to subscribed receiver ports.

Question 311

An HPE Aruba Networking engineer observes: An IPTV receiver requests the correct group but the switch filters membership on a different VLAN. The corrective solution must keep intended connectivity, segmentation, and operational resilience. Which response best satisfies the technical requirement without disrupting unrelated traffic?

  1. Configure and validate tagged VLAN membership across each uplink and consistent native VLAN treatment where required by the topology.
  2. Use supported IGMP snooping and a proper querier to constrain layer-2 multicast to subscribed receiver ports.
  3. Use the appropriate AOS-CX global, VLAN, interface and routing CLI contexts, and verify commands against the exact platform and version.
  4. Plan PIM-enabled supported routed interfaces, unicast RPF reachability and rendezvous-point requirements for cross-subnet multicast.

Explanation

Correct Answer

B:

The decisive observed condition is: An IPTV receiver requests the correct group but the switch filters membership on a different VLAN. The appropriate switching action is: Use supported IGMP snooping and a proper querier to constrain layer-2 multicast to subscribed receiver ports. It addresses the risk that without valid membership state, multicast can flood unrelated access ports or fail to reach intended receivers. Confirm with: One subscribed receiver receives the stream while an unsubscribed VLAN port is not flooded during the test.

Incorrect Answers

A:

This alternative concerns vlan trunk tagging and permitted vlan filters; its associated risk is: A missing tagged VLAN on one hop silently isolates clients, while unintended VLAN allowance bridges security domains. The observed case An IPTV receiver requests the correct group but the switch filters membership on a different VLAN requires the more specific igmp snooping querier and multicast receiver membership control. The targeted action is: Use supported IGMP snooping and a proper querier to constrain layer-2 multicast to subscribed receiver ports.

C:

This alternative concerns aos-cx cli configuration context and verification; its associated risk is: Commands copied from a different platform family or wrong configuration context may be rejected or alter an unintended object. The observed case An IPTV receiver requests the correct group but the switch filters membership on a different VLAN requires the more specific igmp snooping querier and multicast receiver membership control. The targeted action is: Use supported IGMP snooping and a proper querier to constrain layer-2 multicast to subscribed receiver ports.

D:

This alternative concerns pim sparse-mode and routed multicast control; its associated risk is: Correct IGMP join behavior at a receiver does not create an inter-VLAN multicast path without the appropriate routed multicast control plane. The observed case An IPTV receiver requests the correct group but the switch filters membership on a different VLAN requires the more specific igmp snooping querier and multicast receiver membership control. The targeted action is: Use supported IGMP snooping and a proper querier to constrain layer-2 multicast to subscribed receiver ports.

Question 312

The switch operations team reports: An IPTV receiver requests the correct group but the switch filters membership on a different VLAN. Which consequence explains why the described network state is unsuitable?

  1. Commands copied from a different platform family or wrong configuration context may be rejected or alter an unintended object.
  2. Correct IGMP join behavior at a receiver does not create an inter-VLAN multicast path without the appropriate routed multicast control plane.
  3. A missing tagged VLAN on one hop silently isolates clients, while unintended VLAN allowance bridges security domains.
  4. Without valid membership state, multicast can flood unrelated access ports or fail to reach intended receivers.

Explanation

Correct Answer

D:

The direct operational failure mode is: Without valid membership state, multicast can flood unrelated access ports or fail to reach intended receivers. It applies to the condition An IPTV receiver requests the correct group but the switch filters membership on a different VLAN. The suitable corrective action is: Use supported IGMP snooping and a proper querier to constrain layer-2 multicast to subscribed receiver ports. Independently validate using: One subscribed receiver receives the stream while an unsubscribed VLAN port is not flooded during the test.

Incorrect Answers

A:

This alternative concerns aos-cx cli configuration context and verification; its associated risk is: Commands copied from a different platform family or wrong configuration context may be rejected or alter an unintended object. The observed case An IPTV receiver requests the correct group but the switch filters membership on a different VLAN requires the more specific igmp snooping querier and multicast receiver membership control. The targeted action is: Use supported IGMP snooping and a proper querier to constrain layer-2 multicast to subscribed receiver ports.

B:

This alternative concerns pim sparse-mode and routed multicast control; its associated risk is: Correct IGMP join behavior at a receiver does not create an inter-VLAN multicast path without the appropriate routed multicast control plane. The observed case An IPTV receiver requests the correct group but the switch filters membership on a different VLAN requires the more specific igmp snooping querier and multicast receiver membership control. The targeted action is: Use supported IGMP snooping and a proper querier to constrain layer-2 multicast to subscribed receiver ports.

C:

This alternative concerns vlan trunk tagging and permitted vlan filters; its associated risk is: A missing tagged VLAN on one hop silently isolates clients, while unintended VLAN allowance bridges security domains. The observed case An IPTV receiver requests the correct group but the switch filters membership on a different VLAN requires the more specific igmp snooping querier and multicast receiver membership control. The targeted action is: Use supported IGMP snooping and a proper querier to constrain layer-2 multicast to subscribed receiver ports.

Question 313

An HPE Aruba Networking engineer observes: A live event must cross routed buildings but the distribution routers enable only IGMP snooping. The corrective solution must keep intended connectivity, segmentation, and operational resilience. Which change best addresses the observed switching requirement?

  1. Use supported IGMP snooping and a proper querier to constrain layer-2 multicast to subscribed receiver ports.
  2. Set a consistent MSTP region name, revision and VLAN-to-instance mapping and deliberately place the root where the topology requires.
  3. Plan PIM-enabled supported routed interfaces, unicast RPF reachability and rendezvous-point requirements for cross-subnet multicast.
  4. Establish compatible OSPF process, area, interface and adjacency parameters before relying on dynamic campus route convergence.

Explanation

Correct Answer

C:

The decisive observed condition is: A live event must cross routed buildings but the distribution routers enable only IGMP snooping. The appropriate switching action is: Plan PIM-enabled supported routed interfaces, unicast RPF reachability and rendezvous-point requirements for cross-subnet multicast. It addresses the risk that correct IGMP join behavior at a receiver does not create an inter-VLAN multicast path without the appropriate routed multicast control plane. Confirm with: A source and receiver in separate test subnets exchange multicast while RPF and PIM neighbor states match the design.

Incorrect Answers

A:

This alternative concerns igmp snooping querier and multicast receiver membership; its associated risk is: Without valid membership state, multicast can flood unrelated access ports or fail to reach intended receivers. The observed case A live event must cross routed buildings but the distribution routers enable only IGMP snooping requires the more specific pim sparse-mode and routed multicast control control. The targeted action is: Plan PIM-enabled supported routed interfaces, unicast RPF reachability and rendezvous-point requirements for cross-subnet multicast.

B:

This alternative concerns mstp configuration and loop control; its associated risk is: A mismatched MSTP region or unintended root can block critical trunks or increase convergence disruption. The observed case A live event must cross routed buildings but the distribution routers enable only IGMP snooping requires the more specific pim sparse-mode and routed multicast control control. The targeted action is: Plan PIM-enabled supported routed interfaces, unicast RPF reachability and rendezvous-point requirements for cross-subnet multicast.

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 live event must cross routed buildings but the distribution routers enable only IGMP snooping requires the more specific pim sparse-mode and routed multicast control control. The targeted action is: Plan PIM-enabled supported routed interfaces, unicast RPF reachability and rendezvous-point requirements for cross-subnet multicast.

Question 314

An engineer investigates: A live event must cross routed buildings but the distribution routers enable only IGMP snooping. Which verification proves the intended operational state rather than just a saved configuration?

  1. Peer neighbor state reaches the expected adjacency and learned routes survive an approved uplink failure test.
  2. Spanning-tree show output confirms expected instance membership, root IDs and port forwarding or blocking roles.
  3. One subscribed receiver receives the stream while an unsubscribed VLAN port is not flooded during the test.
  4. A source and receiver in separate test subnets exchange multicast while RPF and PIM neighbor states match the design.

Explanation

Correct Answer

D:

The independent acceptance evidence for A live event must cross routed buildings but the distribution routers enable only IGMP snooping is: A source and receiver in separate test subnets exchange multicast while RPF and PIM neighbor states match the design. It tests whether the team has actually implemented: Plan PIM-enabled supported routed interfaces, unicast RPF reachability and rendezvous-point requirements for cross-subnet multicast. An enabled interface or saved configuration by itself is not evidence of complete service recovery.

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 live event must cross routed buildings but the distribution routers enable only IGMP snooping requires the more specific pim sparse-mode and routed multicast control control. The targeted action is: Plan PIM-enabled supported routed interfaces, unicast RPF reachability and rendezvous-point requirements for cross-subnet multicast.

B:

This alternative concerns mstp configuration and loop control; its associated risk is: A mismatched MSTP region or unintended root can block critical trunks or increase convergence disruption. The observed case A live event must cross routed buildings but the distribution routers enable only IGMP snooping requires the more specific pim sparse-mode and routed multicast control control. The targeted action is: Plan PIM-enabled supported routed interfaces, unicast RPF reachability and rendezvous-point requirements for cross-subnet multicast.

C:

This alternative concerns igmp snooping querier and multicast receiver membership; its associated risk is: Without valid membership state, multicast can flood unrelated access ports or fail to reach intended receivers. The observed case A live event must cross routed buildings but the distribution routers enable only IGMP snooping requires the more specific pim sparse-mode and routed multicast control control. The targeted action is: Plan PIM-enabled supported routed interfaces, unicast RPF reachability and rendezvous-point requirements for cross-subnet multicast.

Question 315

An HPE Aruba Networking engineer observes: An upstream PIM neighbor comes up yet the switch's unicast reverse-path route toward the multicast source points elsewhere. The corrective solution must keep intended connectivity, segmentation, and operational resilience. What is the most defensible operational action before closing the network change?

  1. Apply supported classification and DSCP or CoS trust policies at appropriate access boundaries instead of trusting every endpoint marking.
  2. Configure and validate tagged VLAN membership across each uplink and consistent native VLAN treatment where required by the topology.
  3. Plan PIM-enabled supported routed interfaces, unicast RPF reachability and rendezvous-point requirements for cross-subnet multicast.
  4. Use supported IGMP snooping and a proper querier to constrain layer-2 multicast to subscribed receiver ports.

Explanation

Correct Answer

C:

The decisive observed condition is: An upstream PIM neighbor comes up yet the switch's unicast reverse-path route toward the multicast source points elsewhere. The appropriate switching action is: Plan PIM-enabled supported routed interfaces, unicast RPF reachability and rendezvous-point requirements for cross-subnet multicast. It addresses the risk that correct IGMP join behavior at a receiver does not create an inter-VLAN multicast path without the appropriate routed multicast control plane. Confirm with: A source and receiver in separate test subnets exchange multicast while RPF and PIM neighbor states match the design.

Incorrect Answers

A:

This alternative concerns dscp and cos classification trust boundaries; its associated risk is: Untrusted hosts can mark bulk flows as high priority and starve real-time applications during congestion. The observed case An upstream PIM neighbor comes up yet the switch's unicast reverse-path route toward the multicast source points elsewhere requires the more specific pim sparse-mode and routed multicast control control. The targeted action is: Plan PIM-enabled supported routed interfaces, unicast RPF reachability and rendezvous-point requirements for cross-subnet multicast.

B:

This alternative concerns vlan trunk tagging and permitted vlan filters; its associated risk is: A missing tagged VLAN on one hop silently isolates clients, while unintended VLAN allowance bridges security domains. The observed case An upstream PIM neighbor comes up yet the switch's unicast reverse-path route toward the multicast source points elsewhere requires the more specific pim sparse-mode and routed multicast control control. The targeted action is: Plan PIM-enabled supported routed interfaces, unicast RPF reachability and rendezvous-point requirements for cross-subnet multicast.

D:

This alternative concerns igmp snooping querier and multicast receiver membership; its associated risk is: Without valid membership state, multicast can flood unrelated access ports or fail to reach intended receivers. The observed case An upstream PIM neighbor comes up yet the switch's unicast reverse-path route toward the multicast source points elsewhere requires the more specific pim sparse-mode and routed multicast control control. The targeted action is: Plan PIM-enabled supported routed interfaces, unicast RPF reachability and rendezvous-point requirements for cross-subnet multicast.

Question 316

The switch operations team reports: An upstream PIM neighbor comes up yet the switch's unicast reverse-path route toward the multicast source points elsewhere. What adverse switching behavior should the engineer anticipate?

  1. A missing tagged VLAN on one hop silently isolates clients, while unintended VLAN allowance bridges security domains.
  2. Untrusted hosts can mark bulk flows as high priority and starve real-time applications during congestion.
  3. Correct IGMP join behavior at a receiver does not create an inter-VLAN multicast path without the appropriate routed multicast control plane.
  4. Without valid membership state, multicast can flood unrelated access ports or fail to reach intended receivers.

Explanation

Correct Answer

C:

The direct operational failure mode is: Correct IGMP join behavior at a receiver does not create an inter-VLAN multicast path without the appropriate routed multicast control plane. It applies to the condition An upstream PIM neighbor comes up yet the switch's unicast reverse-path route toward the multicast source points elsewhere. The suitable corrective action is: Plan PIM-enabled supported routed interfaces, unicast RPF reachability and rendezvous-point requirements for cross-subnet multicast. Independently validate using: A source and receiver in separate test subnets exchange multicast while RPF and PIM neighbor states match the design.

Incorrect Answers

A:

This alternative concerns vlan trunk tagging and permitted vlan filters; its associated risk is: A missing tagged VLAN on one hop silently isolates clients, while unintended VLAN allowance bridges security domains. The observed case An upstream PIM neighbor comes up yet the switch's unicast reverse-path route toward the multicast source points elsewhere requires the more specific pim sparse-mode and routed multicast control control. The targeted action is: Plan PIM-enabled supported routed interfaces, unicast RPF reachability and rendezvous-point requirements for cross-subnet multicast.

B:

This alternative concerns dscp and cos classification trust boundaries; its associated risk is: Untrusted hosts can mark bulk flows as high priority and starve real-time applications during congestion. The observed case An upstream PIM neighbor comes up yet the switch's unicast reverse-path route toward the multicast source points elsewhere requires the more specific pim sparse-mode and routed multicast control control. The targeted action is: Plan PIM-enabled supported routed interfaces, unicast RPF reachability and rendezvous-point requirements for cross-subnet multicast.

D:

This alternative concerns igmp snooping querier and multicast receiver membership; its associated risk is: Without valid membership state, multicast can flood unrelated access ports or fail to reach intended receivers. The observed case An upstream PIM neighbor comes up yet the switch's unicast reverse-path route toward the multicast source points elsewhere requires the more specific pim sparse-mode and routed multicast control control. The targeted action is: Plan PIM-enabled supported routed interfaces, unicast RPF reachability and rendezvous-point requirements for cross-subnet multicast.

Question 317

An HPE Aruba Networking engineer observes: A multicast design lacks a reachable RP for the required sparse-mode shared tree. The corrective solution must keep intended connectivity, segmentation, and operational resilience. Which implementation or troubleshooting step directly resolves the specific network issue?

  1. Plan PIM-enabled supported routed interfaces, unicast RPF reachability and rendezvous-point requirements for cross-subnet multicast.
  2. Map authenticated user or device attributes to supported HPE Aruba Networking role-based segmentation with verified policy enforcement on the chosen model.
  3. Use supported IGMP snooping and a proper querier to constrain layer-2 multicast to subscribed receiver ports.
  4. Restrict switch management protocols and administrative roles through approved AAA, SSH and source-policy controls with local recovery access.

Explanation

Correct Answer

A:

The decisive observed condition is: A multicast design lacks a reachable RP for the required sparse-mode shared tree. The appropriate switching action is: Plan PIM-enabled supported routed interfaces, unicast RPF reachability and rendezvous-point requirements for cross-subnet multicast. It addresses the risk that correct IGMP join behavior at a receiver does not create an inter-VLAN multicast path without the appropriate routed multicast control plane. Confirm with: A source and receiver in separate test subnets exchange multicast while RPF and PIM neighbor states match the design.

Incorrect Answers

B:

This alternative concerns dynamic segmentation roles and enforcement; its associated risk is: Role names without operational enforcement can leave different endpoint classes in an improperly shared security domain. The observed case A multicast design lacks a reachable RP for the required sparse-mode shared tree requires the more specific pim sparse-mode and routed multicast control control. The targeted action is: Plan PIM-enabled supported routed interfaces, unicast RPF reachability and rendezvous-point requirements for cross-subnet multicast.

C:

This alternative concerns igmp snooping querier and multicast receiver membership; its associated risk is: Without valid membership state, multicast can flood unrelated access ports or fail to reach intended receivers. The observed case A multicast design lacks a reachable RP for the required sparse-mode shared tree requires the more specific pim sparse-mode and routed multicast control control. The targeted action is: Plan PIM-enabled supported routed interfaces, unicast RPF reachability and rendezvous-point requirements for cross-subnet multicast.

D:

This alternative concerns management plane aaa ssh and least privilege; its associated risk is: An accessible management interface with weak authorization can expose production switching changes to unauthorized staff. The observed case A multicast design lacks a reachable RP for the required sparse-mode shared tree requires the more specific pim sparse-mode and routed multicast control control. The targeted action is: Plan PIM-enabled supported routed interfaces, unicast RPF reachability and rendezvous-point requirements for cross-subnet multicast.

Question 318

An engineer investigates: A multicast design lacks a reachable RP for the required sparse-mode shared tree. Which verification proves the intended operational state rather than just a saved configuration?

  1. Role-based management login tests enforce least privilege and approved emergency access while insecure services remain disabled.
  2. A role-specific traffic matrix proves a permitted user reaches allowed services and a different role is blocked from restricted destinations.
  3. A source and receiver in separate test subnets exchange multicast while RPF and PIM neighbor states match the design.
  4. One subscribed receiver receives the stream while an unsubscribed VLAN port is not flooded during the test.

Explanation

Correct Answer

C:

The independent acceptance evidence for A multicast design lacks a reachable RP for the required sparse-mode shared tree is: A source and receiver in separate test subnets exchange multicast while RPF and PIM neighbor states match the design. It tests whether the team has actually implemented: Plan PIM-enabled supported routed interfaces, unicast RPF reachability and rendezvous-point requirements for cross-subnet multicast. An enabled interface or saved configuration by itself is not evidence of complete service recovery.

Incorrect Answers

A:

This alternative concerns management plane aaa ssh and least privilege; its associated risk is: An accessible management interface with weak authorization can expose production switching changes to unauthorized staff. The observed case A multicast design lacks a reachable RP for the required sparse-mode shared tree requires the more specific pim sparse-mode and routed multicast control control. The targeted action is: Plan PIM-enabled supported routed interfaces, unicast RPF reachability and rendezvous-point requirements for cross-subnet multicast.

B:

This alternative concerns dynamic segmentation roles and enforcement; its associated risk is: Role names without operational enforcement can leave different endpoint classes in an improperly shared security domain. The observed case A multicast design lacks a reachable RP for the required sparse-mode shared tree requires the more specific pim sparse-mode and routed multicast control control. The targeted action is: Plan PIM-enabled supported routed interfaces, unicast RPF reachability and rendezvous-point requirements for cross-subnet multicast.

D:

This alternative concerns igmp snooping querier and multicast receiver membership; its associated risk is: Without valid membership state, multicast can flood unrelated access ports or fail to reach intended receivers. The observed case A multicast design lacks a reachable RP for the required sparse-mode shared tree requires the more specific pim sparse-mode and routed multicast control control. The targeted action is: Plan PIM-enabled supported routed interfaces, unicast RPF reachability and rendezvous-point requirements for cross-subnet multicast.

Question 319

An HPE Aruba Networking engineer observes: A newly added VLAN has IGMP receivers but no PIM-enabled gateway interface for routed delivery. The corrective solution must keep intended connectivity, segmentation, and operational resilience. Which response best satisfies the technical requirement without disrupting unrelated traffic?

  1. Use supported IGMP snooping and a proper querier to constrain layer-2 multicast to subscribed receiver ports.
  2. Plan PIM-enabled supported routed interfaces, unicast RPF reachability and rendezvous-point requirements for cross-subnet multicast.
  3. Establish compatible OSPF process, area, interface and adjacency parameters before relying on dynamic campus route convergence.
  4. Confirm port optics, fiber or copper type, distance, power and compatible transceiver part numbers before physical installation.

Explanation

Correct Answer

B:

The decisive observed condition is: A newly added VLAN has IGMP receivers but no PIM-enabled gateway interface for routed delivery. The appropriate switching action is: Plan PIM-enabled supported routed interfaces, unicast RPF reachability and rendezvous-point requirements for cross-subnet multicast. It addresses the risk that correct IGMP join behavior at a receiver does not create an inter-VLAN multicast path without the appropriate routed multicast control plane. Confirm with: A source and receiver in separate test subnets exchange multicast while RPF and PIM neighbor states match the design.

Incorrect Answers

A:

This alternative concerns igmp snooping querier and multicast receiver membership; its associated risk is: Without valid membership state, multicast can flood unrelated access ports or fail to reach intended receivers. The observed case A newly added VLAN has IGMP receivers but no PIM-enabled gateway interface for routed delivery requires the more specific pim sparse-mode and routed multicast control control. The targeted action is: Plan PIM-enabled supported routed interfaces, unicast RPF reachability and rendezvous-point requirements for cross-subnet multicast.

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 A newly added VLAN has IGMP receivers but no PIM-enabled gateway interface for routed delivery requires the more specific pim sparse-mode and routed multicast control control. The targeted action is: Plan PIM-enabled supported routed interfaces, unicast RPF reachability and rendezvous-point requirements for cross-subnet multicast.

D:

This alternative concerns rack transceiver compatibility and link budget; its associated risk is: Unsupported optic combinations or bad attenuation can cause intermittent errors even when the link initially reports carrier. The observed case A newly added VLAN has IGMP receivers but no PIM-enabled gateway interface for routed delivery requires the more specific pim sparse-mode and routed multicast control control. The targeted action is: Plan PIM-enabled supported routed interfaces, unicast RPF reachability and rendezvous-point requirements for cross-subnet multicast.

Question 320

The HPE AOS-CX switching case is: A newly added VLAN has IGMP receivers but no PIM-enabled gateway interface for routed delivery. Select TWO: a corrective switching action and separate evidence that the correction worked. (Select TWO.)

  1. Peer neighbor state reaches the expected adjacency and learned routes survive an approved uplink failure test.
  2. Plan PIM-enabled supported routed interfaces, unicast RPF reachability and rendezvous-point requirements for cross-subnet multicast.
  3. Confirm port optics, fiber or copper type, distance, power and compatible transceiver part numbers before physical installation.
  4. A source and receiver in separate test subnets exchange multicast while RPF and PIM neighbor states match the design.
  5. Use supported IGMP snooping and a proper querier to constrain layer-2 multicast to subscribed receiver ports.

Explanation

Correct Answers

B:

The targeted correction for A newly added VLAN has IGMP receivers but no PIM-enabled gateway interface for routed delivery is: Plan PIM-enabled supported routed interfaces, unicast RPF reachability and rendezvous-point requirements for cross-subnet multicast. It reduces the risk that correct IGMP join behavior at a receiver does not create an inter-VLAN multicast path without the appropriate routed multicast control plane.

D:

A separate operational validation for A newly added VLAN has IGMP receivers but no PIM-enabled gateway interface for routed delivery is: A source and receiver in separate test subnets exchange multicast while RPF and PIM neighbor states match the design. It proves intended behavior instead of accepting configuration presence alone.

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 added VLAN has IGMP receivers but no PIM-enabled gateway interface for routed delivery requires the more specific pim sparse-mode and routed multicast control control. The targeted action is: Plan PIM-enabled supported routed interfaces, unicast RPF reachability and rendezvous-point requirements for cross-subnet multicast.

C:

This alternative concerns rack transceiver compatibility and link budget; its associated risk is: Unsupported optic combinations or bad attenuation can cause intermittent errors even when the link initially reports carrier. The observed case A newly added VLAN has IGMP receivers but no PIM-enabled gateway interface for routed delivery requires the more specific pim sparse-mode and routed multicast control control. The targeted action is: Plan PIM-enabled supported routed interfaces, unicast RPF reachability and rendezvous-point requirements for cross-subnet multicast.

E:

This alternative concerns igmp snooping querier and multicast receiver membership; its associated risk is: Without valid membership state, multicast can flood unrelated access ports or fail to reach intended receivers. The observed case A newly added VLAN has IGMP receivers but no PIM-enabled gateway interface for routed delivery requires the more specific pim sparse-mode and routed multicast control control. The targeted action is: Plan PIM-enabled supported routed interfaces, unicast RPF reachability and rendezvous-point requirements for cross-subnet multicast.