Cisco®
CompTIA
Checkpoint
ISC
EC-Council
EXIN
Fortinet
ITIL®
Juniper
PMI
Microsoft
VMware
Avaya
Google
Salesforce
Amazon
Palo Alto Networks
ISC2
Splunk®
All Vendors
  2. Home
  3. Exams
  4. HP
  5. HPE2-W09

Free HPE2-W09 Exam Braindumps (page: 8)

Page 3 of 34
PDF with 129 Questions

Refer to the exhibit.

Refer to the exhibit.



You are adding a VLAN 30, subnet 10.0.30.0/24 to the network shown in the exhibit. (This network is simplified to just the relevant switches for this item.) This subnet belongs in VRF A, and you have added a Layer 3 VLAN 30 interface attached to this VRF on Switch-1. You want to make the services in this VLAN available to devices in 10.1.20.0/24 in VRF B.

Is this part of a valid setup for meeting these requirements?

Solution: Add VRF B as the secondary VRF on VLAN interface 30.

  1. Yes
  2. No

Answer(s): B

Explanation:

The solution is incorrect because adding VRF B as the secondary VRF on VLAN interface 30 is not part of a valid setup for meeting these requirements. Adding VRF B as the secondary VRF on VLAN interface 30 would allow devices in VLAN 30 to communicate with devices in VRF B, but not vice versa. Therefore, adding VRF B as the secondary VRF on VLAN interface 30 is not sufficient for meeting these requirements.

: https://www.arubanetworks.com/support-services/training-services/data-center-network- specialist/



Refer to the exhibit.



You are adding a VLAN 30, subnet 10.0.30.0/24 to the network shown in the exhibit. (This network is simplified to just the relevant switches for this item.) This subnet belongs in VRF A, and you have added a Layer 3 VLAN 30 interface attached to this VRF on Switch-1. You want to make the services in this VLAN available to devices in 10.1.20.0/24 in VRF B.

Is this part of a valid setup for meeting these requirements?

Solution: Add a route with this command: ip route 10.1.20.0/24 vlan20 vrf A

  1. Yes
  2. No

Answer(s): B

Explanation:

Adding a route with this command: ip route 10.1.20.0/24 vlan20 vrf A is not part of a valid setup for meeting these requirements. This command would add a static route for 10.1.20.0/24 in VRF A, but it would not be able to reach VLAN 20 on Switch-2 because Switch-2 does not have a VLAN interface for VLAN 20 in VRF A. To make the services in VLAN 30 available to devices in 10.1.20.0/24 in VRF B, you need to use inter-VRF routing or route leaking between VRF A and VRF B on Switch-11.



Is this part of a valid strategy for load sharing traffic across the links in an Ethernet Ring Protection Switching (ERPS) solution?

Solution: Implement Virtual Switching Extension (VSX) on pairs of ERPS switches at the same site.

  1. Yes
  2. No

Answer(s): A

Explanation:

Implementing Virtual Switching Extension (VSX) on pairs of ERPS switches at the same site is part of a valid strategy for load sharing traffic across the links in an Ethernet Ring Protection Switching (ERPS) solution. VSX allows two switches to act as a single logical device and provide active-active forwarding across both switches. This way, traffic can be load balanced across all links in the ERPS ring without creating loops1.



You plan to use multi-protocol BGP to implement dynamic VRF route leaking on an ArubaOS-CX switch.

Is this a rule for the setup?

Solution: You can only leak routes between up to three VRFs.

  1. Yes
  2. No

Answer(s): B

Explanation:

You can only leak routes between up to three VRFs is not a rule for the setup of multi-protocol BGP to implement dynamic VRF route leaking on an ArubaOS-CX switch. There is no limit on the number of VRFs that can participate in route leaking using multi-protocol BGP. You can configure multiple import and export route targets for each VRF and leak routes between any VRFs that have matching route targets1.






Post your Comments and Discuss HP HPE2-W09 exam with other Community members: