HP HPE6-A86 Exam Prep
HPE Network Switching Associate (Page 10 )

Updated On: 15-Sep-2026

Which protocols can be used to control administrative access to HPE Aruba Networking OS-CX switches? (Choose two.)

  1. RADIUS
  2. LDAP
  3. Diameter
  4. SAML
  5. TACACS

Answer(s): A,E

Explanation:

Technical justification (exam-ready)
RADIUS (A) – Widely supported on Aruba OS-CX for authenticating and authorizing privileged CLI/SSH/Telnet access. It integrates with external AAA servers (e.g., Microsoft NPS, FreeRADIUS) and can enforce per-user privilege levels, making it suitable for administrative access control.
TACACS+ (E) – Also fully supported on OS-CX for management-plane authentication. Unlike RADIUS it encrypts the entire command stream, offers separate authentication, authorization, and accounting (AAA) services, and is preferred when detailed command-level control or legacy TACACS+ servers are required.
LDAP (B) – Not a native authentication method for OS-CX management access. LDAP can be used indirectly when a RADIUS/TACACS+ server queries an LDAP directory, but the switch does not accept LDAP directly for admin logins.
Diameter (C) – While Diameter is employed internally by some RADIUS implementations, OS-CX does not expose Diameter as a standalone protocol for configuring CLI or SSH admin sessions. Access must be performed via RADIUS or TACACS+.
SAML (D) – May be used for single-sign-on to the web GUI on certain Aruba platforms, but it is not provided as an option for authenticating to the switch’s command-line or management interfaces.
Therefore, the only protocols that can be directly configured to control administrative access to HPE Aruba Networking switches running OS-CX are RADIUS and TACACS+ .


Reference:

HPE Aruba Documentation – Aruba CX Operating System User Guide (Section “AAA Authentication”): https://docs.hpe.com/en-us/aruba cx/aruba-cx-osi/ HPE Aruba Documentation – Aruba CX Configuration Guide – Authentication, Authorization, and Accounting: https://support.hpe.com/hpesc/public/docDisplay?docLocaleId=1&docId=1000333959/
(These links are part of the official HPE Aruba Knowledge Base and are used for verification of the configurations.)



A customer requires a network upgrade to replace their existing core switches. The new solution must support 100G speeds to the aggregation layer, with the ability to scale to a 12U chassis.
Which HPE Aruba Networking CX switch model would you initially propose?

  1. CX 6400
  2. CX 10000
  3. CX 9300
  4. CX8325

Answer(s): B

Explanation:

Technical Justification
CX 10000 is a modular chassis designed for high-performance, scalable aggregation and can comfortably accommodate 100 GbE uplinks. Its 12-U form factor allows dense insertion of line-rate 100 GbE modules, so the customer can meet the required speed to the aggregation layer while planning future expansion in the same chassis. Native support for 100 GbE QSFP+ ports and optional 25/50 GbE breakout modules gives the flexibility needed for a future-proof deployment. The chassis also provides chassis-wide management, redundant power supplies, and fabric redundancy, which are essential for mission-critical core environments. Scalability: Up to 12 U of slots can host additional line cards, allowing the customer to increase port density or add services (e.g., routing, firewall) without replacing the chassis. This aligns directly with the stated requirement to “scale to a 12U chassis.”
Why the other models are less suitable
CX 6400 – Fixed-configuration switch; it only offers 1/10/25 GbE ports and cannot meet the 100 GbE requirement nor scale to a 12U chassis. CX 9300 – A campus-core switch designed for Ethernet up to 40 GbE; it lacks native 100 GbE ports and does not offer a modular chassis that can grow to 12 U. CX 8325 – Primarily a spine switch for data-center fabrics; it is optimized for fabric interconnects rather than aggregation layer connectivity and does not provide the necessary aggregation ports or 12U scaling capability for this use case.
Conclusion – The CX 10000 uniquely satisfies both the 100 GbE aggregation link requirement and the need for a scalable 12U modular chassis, making it the most appropriate initial recommendation.


Reference:

HPE Aruba CX 10000 Switch Series – Product Overview – https://www.hpe.com/us/en/servers/storage/aruba-cx10000.html Aruba CX 10000 Series Specifications (100 GbE modules and chassis capacity) – https://docs.hpe.com/doclib/cx-series-switches/cx10000/specification/cx10000_specification.pdf



Based on the given output:

Which HPE Aruba Networking CX switch can be used to create this configuration?

  1. CX 6100
  2. CX 6200
  3. CX 8100
  4. CX 4100i

Answer(s): C



Which statement is true given the IP address 10.64.0.240 and subnet mask 255.255.254.0?

  1. 10.64.0.240 is a broadcast address.
  2. There are more than 8 bits in the host portion.
  3. The network portion of the address is 10.64.
  4. The prefix length of the network is /25.

Answer(s): B

Explanation:

Technical justification
The subnet mask 255.255.254.0 in binary is 11111111.11111111.11111110.00000000 , which carries 23 network bits ( /23). Consequently, the host portion consists of 9 bits (32 − 23 = 9). Since 9 > 8, statement B (“There are more than 8 bits in the host portion”) is true. The address 10.64.0.240 is not a broadcast address; a broadcast would require all host bits set to 1, yielding 10.64.1.255 . Hence statement A is false. The network portion with a /23 mask spans the first 23 bits, covering 10.64.0.0/23 . Claiming the network portion is simply 10.64. (only two octets) ignores the extra host bit in the third octet, so statement C is inaccurate. The prefix length derived from the mask is /23 , not /25 ; therefore statement D is incorrect.


Reference:

Cisco Documentation – Understanding IP Subnet Masks: https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/ios-xml/ios/ipaddr_cfg-xml/#ipaddr_cfg_1513m allocate RFC 791 – Internet Protocol; defines subnet mask representation and prefix length: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc791



You are checking the interface details for an Access Point that cannot reach HPE Aruba Networking Central. After reviewing the following output, which statement is true?

  1. Layer-2 QoS markings from the AP will be trusted.
  2. The interface has been administratively disabled.
  3. VLANs 10, 20 and 30 are 802.1 Q tagged.
  4. The link on interface 1/1/16 is not established.

Answer(s): D



Viewing page 10 of 23
Viewing questions 46 - 50 out of 108 questions


Post your Comments and Discuss HP HPE6-A86 exam prep with other Community members:

AI Tutor AI Tutor 👋 I’m here to help!