Pass the HP Aruba Certified Professional - Campus Access HPE7-A06 Questions and answers with ExamsMirror

The question involves a client wanting to use the HPE Aruba Networking Switch Multi-Edit Software function in HPE Aruba Networking Central to manage multiple switches. The task is to identify the available option.

Analysis of Options:

Option A (Use templates and apply them to selected switches):Incorrect. Templates are used for configuration management in Central but are not part of the Multi-Edit Software function.

Option B (Apply a configuration to an interface range for selected switches):Incorrect. Multi-Edit focuses on CLI scripting, not specifically interface range configurations.

Option C (Run the same NAE scripts for selected switches):Incorrect. Network Analytics Engine (NAE) scripts are for monitoring, not configuration via Multi-Edit.

Option D:Correct. Multi-Edit Software in Central allows administrators to apply CLI scripts to multiple selected switches for configuration changes.

Why Option D is Correct:HPE Aruba Networking Central’s Multi-Edit Software feature enables administrators to create and apply CLI scripts to multiple AOS-CX switches simultaneously, streamlining configuration tasks. This is particularly useful for bulk changes, such as VLAN configurations or policy updates, across selected switches. The feature supports direct CLI input or script uploads, ensuring consistent application of commands, as per HPE Aruba Networking’s management tools. This aligns with the client’s need for efficient multi-switch management.

Relevance to Certification Objectives:

Connectivity (9%):Developing configurations for multiple devices based on customer requirements.

Troubleshooting (10%):Applying consistent configurations to resolve network issues.

Network Stack (4%):Analyzing solutions for network management automation.

The problem describes uplink congestion affecting VoIP traffic (marked with DSCP EF, value 46) on AGG-1's LAG1 uplink. The existing configuration classifies this traffic into voip_class and applies voip_policy inbound, setting local-priority 6. To improve reliable forwarding during congestion, VoIP traffic needs strict priority queuing on the egress interface (LAG1).  

Analysis of Options:

Option A applies a QoS schedule profile globally but doesn't modify the policy's local-priority or apply the schedule profile specifically to the congested LAG.  

Option B modifies voip_policy to set local-priority 7 (mapping DSCP 46 traffic to queue 7) and applies the 8qDwrStrict schedule profile to the egress interface lag 1. In the 8qDwrStrict profile, queue 7 is configured for strict priority, ensuring voice traffic gets precedence over lower-priority traffic during congestion. This aligns with best practices for QoS for VoIP.  

Option C also sets local-priority 7 and applies the schedule profile to lag 1, but the profile itself configures queue 7 with DWRR (Deficit Weighted Round Robin) instead of strict priority, which is less suitable for delay-sensitive voice traffic.  

Option D applies a schedule profile globally and uses DWRR for queue 7.  

Conclusion:Option B is the correct solution because it maps the DSCP EF traffic to the highest local priority (7) and applies a QoS schedule profile to the specific congested uplink (lag 1) that treats queue 7 with strict priority. This ensures voice traffic is prioritized reliably.

The exhibit shows the output of show vsx status on sw-agg1. Key information includes:

Config Sync Status : sw_image_version_mismatch_error  

NAE : sw_image_version_mismatch_error  

HTTPS Server : sw_image_version_mismatch_error  

Primary Software Version: GL.10.09.0010  

Secondary Software Version: GL.10.11.1021  

These errors clearly indicate that the primary and secondary VSX switches are running different AOS-CX software versions. For VSX to operate correctly, including configuration synchronization and enabling features like MC-LAG interfaces, both switches in the pairmustrun the exact same software version.

Analysis of Options:

A: vsx-software-upgrade is used for upgrades but doesn't resolve the current mismatch requirement.

B: NAE errors are a symptom of the underlying version mismatch.

C: Using the same CX OS version on both primary and secondary switches is the fundamental requirement to clear the mismatch errors and achieve a stable VSX operational state.

D: While ServiceOS is part of the system, the primary requirement and error message relate to the main AOS-CX software version.

The question asks which tables are synchronized between a pair of CX 8325 switches in a Virtual Switching Extension (VSX) cluster. VSX is a high-availability solution that synchronizes specific tables to ensure consistent operation across both switches.

Analysis of Options:

A. BGP Neighbors:BGP neighbor tables are not synchronized in VSX; each switch maintains its own BGP sessions.

B. MAC address:Correct. VSX synchronizes the MAC address table to ensure consistent Layer 2 forwarding across both switches.

C. Spanning-Tree Protocol (STP):STP states are not synchronized; each switch runs its own STP instance, though they coordinate to avoid loops.

D. IP Routing:Correct. VSX synchronizes the IP routing table to ensure consistent Layer 3 forwarding.

E. Link Layer Discovery Protocol (LLDP):LLDP information is not synchronized; each switch maintains its own neighbor information.

Why B and D are Correct:In a VSX cluster, the MAC address table and IP routing table are synchronized to ensure seamless Layer 2 and Layer 3 operations. This synchronization allowsboth switches to share a common view of the network, enabling features like active-active forwarding and hitless failover. The vsx-sync feature in AOS-CX ensures these tables are kept consistent across the VSX pair.

Relevance to Certification Objectives:

Network Resiliency and Virtualization (8%):Involves designing and troubleshooting VSX for resiliency and redundancy.

Switching (19%):Includes implementing and troubleshooting Layer 2 technologies like MAC address tables.

Routing (16%):Covers IP routing table synchronization in VSX environments.

The correct order is:

identify

analyze

hypothesize

validate

implement

verify

This question requires arranging standard troubleshooting steps into a logical sequence. A systematic approach is crucial for effective network troubleshooting.

identify:The first step is always to clearly identify and define the problem. What are the symptoms? Who is affected? What is the scope? When did it start? Understanding the problem precisely is essential before proceeding.

analyze:Once the problem is identified, gather relevant data and analyze the situation. This involves checking logs, looking at configurations, examining network topology diagrams, checking status commands, and potentially capturing packets. This analysis helps build context around the identified issue.

hypothesize:Based on the identification and analysis, form a hypothesis (or multiple hypotheses) about the probable cause of the problem. This involves using technical knowledge and experience to theorize what might be wrong.

validate:Test the hypothesis to determine if it's correct. This step involves performing specific tests or checks designed to confirm or refute the theory. For example, if the hypothesis is a bad cable, test the cable. If it's a routing issue, check the routing table and perform trace routes. This step validates the cause before implementing a fix.

implement:Once the cause has been validated, implement the solution. This could involve replacing hardware, correcting configuration, clearing states, etc.

verify:After implementing the solution, verify that the original problem is resolved. It's also critical to check that the fix hasn't introduced any new issues. Monitor the system to ensure stability.

The question involves an OSPF router receiving both an E1 (External Type 1) and an E2 (External Type 2) advertisement for an external network with the same path cost. The task is to determine which path the router will prefer.

Analysis of Options:

Option A (ECMP):Equal-Cost Multi-Path (ECMP) is used when multiple paths have the same total cost, but E1 and E2 routes have different metric calculations, so ECMP does not apply here.

Option B (Prefer E2):Incorrect, as E2 routes are preferred only when E1 routes are not present or have a higher total cost.

Option C (Suppressed):OSPF does not suppress routes due to path conflicts; it selects the best path based on metrics.

Option D (Prefer E1):Correct. OSPF prefers E1 routes over E2 routes because E1 routes include the internal cost to the ASBR (Autonomous System Boundary Router) plus the external cost, providing a more accurate total cost.

Why Option D is Correct:In OSPF, external routes are advertised as E1 or E2. E1 routes include both the external cost (advertised by the ASBR) and the internal cost to reach the ASBR, making them more precise for path selection. E2 routes only consider the external cost and are the default for redistributed routes unless explicitly configured as E1. When an OSPF router receives both E1 and E2 routes with the same external cost, it prefers the E1 route because it accounts for the total path cost, including internal network topology. This is per OSPF standards (RFC 2328).

Relevance to Certification Objectives:

Routing (16%):Involves designing and troubleshooting OSPF routing topologies, including external route types (E1 vs. E2).

Troubleshooting (10%):Includes analyzing OSPF path selection to resolve routing issues.

The question asks for the minimal configurations required for Multiple Spanning Tree Protocol (MSTP) to work correctly on AOS-CX switches.

Analysis of Options:

Option A:Correct. The MSTP region name must be configured to define the MSTP region and ensure switches belong to the same region.

Option B:Incorrect. Bridge priority is optional and defaults to 32768; it’s not mandatory for MSTP functionality.

Option C:Correct. The MSTP revision number is required to ensure consistency across switches in the same region.

Option D:Incorrect. Enabling MSTP on interfaces is automatic for VLAN-enabled ports; explicit configuration is not mandatory.

Option E:Incorrect. Creating MSTP instances is optional and only needed for specific VLAN-to-instance mappings.

Why A and C are Correct:MSTP requires a consistent region configuration across all switches to function correctly. The minimal configuration includes:

MSTP region name:Defines the region (e.g., spanning-tree config-name REGION1) to group switches.

Revision number:Ensures region consistency (e.g., spanning-tree config-revision 1).

These settings ensure switches form a single MSTP region, allowing VLAN-to-instance mappings (default instance 0 if not specified) and loop prevention. Other settings, like bridge priority or explicit instance creation, are optional and not strictly required for basic MSTP operation.

Relevance to Certification Objectives:

Network Resiliency and Virtualization (8%):Designing and troubleshooting MSTP for redundancy and fault tolerance.

Switching (19%):Implementing Layer 2 technologies like MSTP for loop prevention.

The goal is to add a static route on Router-1 to allow clients in VLAN 10 (subnet 10.2.10.0/24, presumably in VRF 'IoT-Medical' based on options) to reach services in the 10.1.100.0/24 subnet. The exhibit indicates interface 1/1/1 (IP 10.255.101.10/24) is in VRF 'service', and the likely next hop towards the destination is Core-1 at 10.255.101.11 (also implied to be reachable via VRF 'service'). This requires adding a route in the source VRF ('IoT-Medical') pointing towards the destination via the next hop in the 'service' VRF.

Static Route Syntax (with VRF):ip route [vrf ]

Analysis of Options:

A: Claims Core-1 isn't in VRF 'service', contradicting the likely setup.

B: Uses unusual interface:ip syntax (1/1/1:10.255.101.11). Defines the route in VRF 'IoT-Medical'.

C: Uses interface 1/1/1 as the next hop. This is less specific than using the IP address and relies on the interface being point-to-point or having proxy ARP enabled. Defines the route in VRF 'IoT-Medical'.

D: ip route 10.1.100.0/24 10.255.101.11 vrf IoT-Medical. This uses the standard syntax to define a static route for the destination 10.1.100.0/24 via the next-hop IP 10.255.101.11 within the context of the IoT-Medical VRF. The successful function of this route depends on inter-VRF routing (route leaking) being configured between 'IoT-Medical' and 'service' VRFs, but the command itself correctly defines the desired static route.

Conclusion:Option D provides the correct and standard command syntax to configure the required static route within the specified source VRF ('IoT-Medical').

The question asks about a possible constraint when connecting an Aruba Gateway Cluster to upstream VSX switches using an MC-LAG.

Scenario:Gateway Cluster acts as a single logical device forming an LACP LAG. The VSX switches are configured with MC-LAG, allowing the gateway cluster to bundle links across the two physical VSX switches.

LACP & Initial Provisioning:LACP requires negotiation (exchange of LACP PDUs) between both ends of the link bundle to activate the LAG. During initial gateway provisioning (ZTP, OTP), the gateway might be in a minimal state without its full configuration, including LACP parameters. If the VSX switch ports are configured strictly for LACP active mode, the LAG might not form until the gateway is fully provisioned and running LACP. This lack of connectivity during provisioning is a constraint.

Analysis of Options:

A: lacp mode active is standard, but the issue is during provisioning, not runtime mode choice. "static-activate" is unrelated.

B: Theabsenceof lacp fallback could be the constraint. Fallback allows connectivity if LACP doesn't establish, which is useful during provisioning.

C: LLDP is not required for LACP.

D: Correctly identifies the constraint: Standard LACP required by the switch might not be supported or active on the gateway during its initial provisioning phase, potentially hindering the setup process. Workarounds like disabling LACP or enabling LACP fallback on the switch ports during this phase are often necessary.

Conclusion:LACP incompatibility during the initial provisioning phase of the gateway cluster is a common constraint when connecting to switches requiring LACP for the LAG.

A Python developer using the REST API cannot modify the VLAN database on an AOS-CX switch. We need to identify the first settings to check.

REST API Requirements for Modification:

HTTPS Server:The REST API operates over HTTPS, so the HTTPS server must be enabled on the switch (show https-server status).

REST Interface:The REST API interface itself must be enabled (it usually is by default, check with show rest-interface).

Authentication:The API client must provide valid credentials (username/password or token) for a user account configured on the switch.

Authorization:The authenticated user account must have sufficient privileges to modify the configuration (e.g., belong to the built-in administrators group or a custom role with appropriate permissions). Check user details (show user ) and role permissions (show user roles).

Analysis of Options:

A. HTTPS settings: Essential for API communication. Check if enabled.

B. SSH settings: Irrelevant to REST API.

C. SNMP settings: Irrelevant to REST API.

D. REST API settings: Check if enabled (show rest-interface), but it's usually enabled by default. Less likely than A or E to be the initial problem.

E. local-user settings: Crucial for both authentication (correct credentials used?) and authorization (does the user have modification privileges?).

Conclusion:When a REST API modification fails, the most critical initial checks involve ensuring the API endpoint is accessible (HTTPS Server enabled - A) and that the user account being used for the API call has the necessary permissions (local-user settings, specifically privileges/roles - E).