HP HPE7-A01 Practice Test 14
Question 130
A campus switch stack drops a member after its VSF link cable was replaced, leaving several access ports unavailable. Which specific corrective design step best meets the stated campus requirement?
- Bring the replacement member to the approved compatible software and stacking configuration before joining the production VSF.
- Correct supported LAG resilience thresholds and ensure both physical links are eligible active members before relying on failover.
- Repair compatible VSF member identities and stacking links using the device family supported procedure.
- Deploy an approved compatible first-hop or active-gateway mechanism appropriate to the actual switch pair and topology.
Explanation
Correct Answer
C:Repair compatible VSF member identities and stacking links using the device family supported procedure. VSF provides a single logical switch across supported members, which differs from independent VSX peer devices and their ISL. The proposed configuration targets the stated dependency without broadening unrelated access. The decision applies to the described vsf member and conductor status situation.
Incorrect Answers
A:Bring the replacement member to the approved compatible software and stacking configuration before joining the production VSF. This instead concerns vsf upgrade and member compatibility. Stacking members must meet platform and software compatibility requirements; forcing an out-of-family member into a stack risks service interruption. It would not implement the specifically required change. The immediate problem concerns vsf member and conductor status.
B:Correct supported LAG resilience thresholds and ensure both physical links are eligible active members before relying on failover. This instead concerns lag member failure and redundancy. A redundant LAG must retain sufficient eligible members to meet its minimum-link policy; two cabled links alone do not assure survivability. It would not implement the specifically required change. The immediate problem concerns vsf member and conductor status.
D:Deploy an approved compatible first-hop or active-gateway mechanism appropriate to the actual switch pair and topology. This instead concerns resilient gateway versus routing adjacency. Physical path redundancy does not automatically provide default-gateway availability; the applicable first-hop design must preserve an authorized gateway identity. It would not implement the specifically required change. The immediate problem concerns vsf member and conductor status.
Question 131
A campus switch stack drops a member after its VSF link cable was replaced, leaving several access ports unavailable. Following a targeted change, which acceptance test would most directly demonstrate success?
- Validate compatible software on every member and a stable member topology after a staged reload or failover.
- Confirm all members join the same stack and their uplink or access interfaces reappear under the expected logical system.
- Disconnect one approved test member and verify connectivity persists on the surviving link without LACP collapse.
- Confirm hosts retain the advertised gateway and approved traffic during a controlled single-router or peer failure.
Explanation
Correct Answer
B:Confirm all members join the same stack and their uplink or access interfaces reappear under the expected logical system. VSF provides a single logical switch across supported members, which differs from independent VSX peer devices and their ISL. The result tests actual working behavior, not merely a saved configuration. The decision applies to the described vsf member and conductor status situation.
Incorrect Answers
A:Validate compatible software on every member and a stable member topology after a staged reload or failover. This instead concerns vsf upgrade and member compatibility. Stacking members must meet platform and software compatibility requirements; forcing an out-of-family member into a stack risks service interruption. It would not establish that this function actually works. The immediate problem concerns vsf member and conductor status.
C:Disconnect one approved test member and verify connectivity persists on the surviving link without LACP collapse. This instead concerns lag member failure and redundancy. A redundant LAG must retain sufficient eligible members to meet its minimum-link policy; two cabled links alone do not assure survivability. It would not establish that this function actually works. The immediate problem concerns vsf member and conductor status.
D:Confirm hosts retain the advertised gateway and approved traffic during a controlled single-router or peer failure. This instead concerns resilient gateway versus routing adjacency. Physical path redundancy does not automatically provide default-gateway availability; the applicable first-hop design must preserve an authorized gateway identity. It would not establish that this function actually works. The immediate problem concerns vsf member and conductor status.
Question 132
A campus switch stack drops a member after its VSF link cable was replaced, leaving several access ports unavailable. The change fails acceptance. What is the safest targeted restoration action?
- Restore the former working stack-link connections and member addressing before proceeding with a broader stack upgrade.
- Roll back to the last supported common stack image and isolate the incompatible member until a tested upgrade plan is ready.
- Revert the minimum-link or LACP changes to known-good values and recover both members if acceptance traffic fails.
- Restore the established gateway ownership and route tracking policy while remediating mismatched virtual-gateway state.
Explanation
Correct Answer
A:Restore the former working stack-link connections and member addressing before proceeding with a broader stack upgrade. VSF provides a single logical switch across supported members, which differs from independent VSX peer devices and their ISL. The focused rollback restores a known safe baseline before another change attempt. The decision applies to the described vsf member and conductor status situation.
Incorrect Answers
B:Roll back to the last supported common stack image and isolate the incompatible member until a tested upgrade plan is ready. This instead concerns vsf upgrade and member compatibility. Stacking members must meet platform and software compatibility requirements; forcing an out-of-family member into a stack risks service interruption. It would not safely roll back the relevant failed change. The immediate problem concerns vsf member and conductor status.
C:Revert the minimum-link or LACP changes to known-good values and recover both members if acceptance traffic fails. This instead concerns lag member failure and redundancy. A redundant LAG must retain sufficient eligible members to meet its minimum-link policy; two cabled links alone do not assure survivability. It would not safely roll back the relevant failed change. The immediate problem concerns vsf member and conductor status.
D:Restore the established gateway ownership and route tracking policy while remediating mismatched virtual-gateway state. This instead concerns resilient gateway versus routing adjacency. Physical path redundancy does not automatically provide default-gateway availability; the applicable first-hop design must preserve an authorized gateway identity. It would not safely roll back the relevant failed change. The immediate problem concerns vsf member and conductor status.
Question 133
An access closet's stack conductor is reachable but a standby member is absent from the VSF topology inventory. The review requires TWO complementary actions: one diagnostic check and one controlled configuration remedy. Select TWO actions that together meet those requirements.
- Review supported member models, firmware compatibility and the stack version or image state for each member.
- Review VSF member IDs, conductor or standby state and dedicated stacking-link port health.
- Repair supported LAG resilience thresholds and ensure both physical links are eligible active members before relying on failover.
- Correct compatible VSF member identities and stacking links using the device family supported procedure.
Explanation
Correct Answers
B:Review VSF member IDs, conductor or standby state and dedicated stacking-link port health. VSF provides a single logical switch across supported members, which differs from independent VSX peer devices and their ISL. This is the required diagnosis or controlled remedy; the other keyed action supplies the complementary role. The decision applies to the described vsf member and conductor status situation.
D:Correct compatible VSF member identities and stacking links using the device family supported procedure. VSF provides a single logical switch across supported members, which differs from independent VSX peer devices and their ISL. This is the required diagnosis or controlled remedy; the other keyed action supplies the complementary role. The decision applies to the described vsf member and conductor status situation.
Incorrect Answers
A:Review supported member models, firmware compatibility and the stack version or image state for each member. This instead concerns vsf upgrade and member compatibility. Stacking members must meet platform and software compatibility requirements; forcing an out-of-family member into a stack risks service interruption. It is not one of the requested paired diagnosis and configuration actions. The immediate problem concerns vsf member and conductor status.
C:Repair supported LAG resilience thresholds and ensure both physical links are eligible active members before relying on failover. This instead concerns lag member failure and redundancy. A redundant LAG must retain sufficient eligible members to meet its minimum-link policy; two cabled links alone do not assure survivability. It is not one of the requested paired diagnosis and configuration actions. The immediate problem concerns vsf member and conductor status.
Question 134
An access closet's stack conductor is reachable but a standby member is absent from the VSF topology inventory. After the root cause is confirmed, which narrowly scoped configuration action should be selected?
- Move the replacement member to the approved compatible software and stacking configuration before joining the production VSF.
- Repair supported LAG resilience thresholds and ensure both physical links are eligible active members before relying on failover.
- Correct compatible VSF member identities and stacking links using the device family supported procedure.
- Roll out an approved compatible first-hop or active-gateway mechanism appropriate to the actual switch pair and topology.
Explanation
Correct Answer
C:Correct compatible VSF member identities and stacking links using the device family supported procedure. VSF provides a single logical switch across supported members, which differs from independent VSX peer devices and their ISL. The proposed configuration targets the stated dependency without broadening unrelated access. The decision applies to the described vsf member and conductor status situation.
Incorrect Answers
A:Move the replacement member to the approved compatible software and stacking configuration before joining the production VSF. This instead concerns vsf upgrade and member compatibility. Stacking members must meet platform and software compatibility requirements; forcing an out-of-family member into a stack risks service interruption. It would not implement the specifically required change. The immediate problem concerns vsf member and conductor status.
B:Repair supported LAG resilience thresholds and ensure both physical links are eligible active members before relying on failover. This instead concerns lag member failure and redundancy. A redundant LAG must retain sufficient eligible members to meet its minimum-link policy; two cabled links alone do not assure survivability. It would not implement the specifically required change. The immediate problem concerns vsf member and conductor status.
D:Roll out an approved compatible first-hop or active-gateway mechanism appropriate to the actual switch pair and topology. This instead concerns resilient gateway versus routing adjacency. Physical path redundancy does not automatically provide default-gateway availability; the applicable first-hop design must preserve an authorized gateway identity. It would not implement the specifically required change. The immediate problem concerns vsf member and conductor status.
Question 135
An access closet's stack conductor is reachable but a standby member is absent from the VSF topology inventory. A deployment job reports success. Which observed result would actually validate the affected service?
- Validate compatible software on every member and a stable member topology after a staged reload or failover for the affected campus deployment.
- Verify all members join the same stack and their uplink or access interfaces reappear under the expected logical system.
- Temporarily disconnect one approved test member and verify connectivity persists on the surviving link without LACP collapse.
- Verify hosts retain the advertised gateway and approved traffic during a controlled single-router or peer failure.
Explanation
Correct Answer
B:Verify all members join the same stack and their uplink or access interfaces reappear under the expected logical system. VSF provides a single logical switch across supported members, which differs from independent VSX peer devices and their ISL. The result tests actual working behavior, not merely a saved configuration. The decision applies to the described vsf member and conductor status situation.
Incorrect Answers
A:Validate compatible software on every member and a stable member topology after a staged reload or failover for the affected campus deployment. This instead concerns vsf upgrade and member compatibility. Stacking members must meet platform and software compatibility requirements; forcing an out-of-family member into a stack risks service interruption. It would not establish that this function actually works. The immediate problem concerns vsf member and conductor status.
C:Temporarily disconnect one approved test member and verify connectivity persists on the surviving link without LACP collapse. This instead concerns lag member failure and redundancy. A redundant LAG must retain sufficient eligible members to meet its minimum-link policy; two cabled links alone do not assure survivability. It would not establish that this function actually works. The immediate problem concerns vsf member and conductor status.
D:Verify hosts retain the advertised gateway and approved traffic during a controlled single-router or peer failure. This instead concerns resilient gateway versus routing adjacency. Physical path redundancy does not automatically provide default-gateway availability; the applicable first-hop design must preserve an authorized gateway identity. It would not establish that this function actually works. The immediate problem concerns vsf member and conductor status.
Question 136
An access closet's stack conductor is reachable but a standby member is absent from the VSF topology inventory. If the revised setting disrupts users, which controlled rollback would be most relevant?
- Reinstate the former working stack-link connections and member addressing before proceeding with a broader stack upgrade.
- Roll back to the last supported common stack image and isolate the incompatible member until a tested upgrade plan is ready for the affected campus deployment.
- Undo the minimum-link or LACP changes to known-good values and recover both members if acceptance traffic fails.
- Reinstate the established gateway ownership and route tracking policy while remediating mismatched virtual-gateway state.
Explanation
Correct Answer
A:Reinstate the former working stack-link connections and member addressing before proceeding with a broader stack upgrade. VSF provides a single logical switch across supported members, which differs from independent VSX peer devices and their ISL. The focused rollback restores a known safe baseline before another change attempt. The decision applies to the described vsf member and conductor status situation.
Incorrect Answers
B:Roll back to the last supported common stack image and isolate the incompatible member until a tested upgrade plan is ready for the affected campus deployment. This instead concerns vsf upgrade and member compatibility. Stacking members must meet platform and software compatibility requirements; forcing an out-of-family member into a stack risks service interruption. It would not safely roll back the relevant failed change. The immediate problem concerns vsf member and conductor status.
C:Undo the minimum-link or LACP changes to known-good values and recover both members if acceptance traffic fails. This instead concerns lag member failure and redundancy. A redundant LAG must retain sufficient eligible members to meet its minimum-link policy; two cabled links alone do not assure survivability. It would not safely roll back the relevant failed change. The immediate problem concerns vsf member and conductor status.
D:Reinstate the established gateway ownership and route tracking policy while remediating mismatched virtual-gateway state. This instead concerns resilient gateway versus routing adjacency. Physical path redundancy does not automatically provide default-gateway availability; the applicable first-hop design must preserve an authorized gateway identity. It would not safely roll back the relevant failed change. The immediate problem concerns vsf member and conductor status.
Question 137
A campus VSF stack upgrade leaves one member on a mismatched software build, preventing it from joining cleanly. Which investigation would best isolate the immediate network dependency?
- Inspect supported member models, firmware compatibility and the stack version or image state for each member.
- Inspect LAG minimum-member requirements, surviving member forwarding state and peer aggregation configuration.
- Inspect the chosen default-gateway redundancy mechanism, virtual address ownership and routing or peer failure state.
- Inspect VSX peer status, inter-switch link aggregation members and the actual ISL forwarding path.
Explanation
Correct Answer
A:Inspect supported member models, firmware compatibility and the stack version or image state for each member. Stacking members must meet platform and software compatibility requirements; forcing an out-of-family member into a stack risks service interruption. The evidence check isolates the relevant prerequisite before a disruptive change. The decision applies to the described vsf upgrade and member compatibility situation.
Incorrect Answers
B:Inspect LAG minimum-member requirements, surviving member forwarding state and peer aggregation configuration. This instead concerns lag member failure and redundancy. A redundant LAG must retain sufficient eligible members to meet its minimum-link policy; two cabled links alone do not assure survivability. It does not isolate the cause of the stated incident. The immediate problem concerns vsf upgrade and member compatibility.
C:Inspect the chosen default-gateway redundancy mechanism, virtual address ownership and routing or peer failure state. This instead concerns resilient gateway versus routing adjacency. Physical path redundancy does not automatically provide default-gateway availability; the applicable first-hop design must preserve an authorized gateway identity. It does not isolate the cause of the stated incident. The immediate problem concerns vsf upgrade and member compatibility.
D:Inspect VSX peer status, inter-switch link aggregation members and the actual ISL forwarding path. This instead concerns vsx inter-switch link integrity. A VSX deployment requires a healthy inter-switch link for coordinated peer functions; keepalive reachability alone does not replace it. It does not isolate the cause of the stated incident. The immediate problem concerns vsf upgrade and member compatibility.
Question 138
A campus VSF stack upgrade leaves one member on a mismatched software build, preventing it from joining cleanly. Which specific corrective design step best meets the stated campus requirement?
- Correct supported LAG resilience thresholds and ensure both physical links are eligible active members before relying on failover.
- Deploy an approved compatible first-hop or active-gateway mechanism appropriate to the actual switch pair and topology.
- Repair the supported VSX ISL LAG and peer configuration while keeping the redundant topology and consistency requirements intact.
- Bring the replacement member to the approved compatible software and stacking configuration before joining the production VSF.
Explanation
Correct Answer
D:Bring the replacement member to the approved compatible software and stacking configuration before joining the production VSF. Stacking members must meet platform and software compatibility requirements; forcing an out-of-family member into a stack risks service interruption. The proposed configuration targets the stated dependency without broadening unrelated access. The decision applies to the described vsf upgrade and member compatibility situation.
Incorrect Answers
A:Correct supported LAG resilience thresholds and ensure both physical links are eligible active members before relying on failover. This instead concerns lag member failure and redundancy. A redundant LAG must retain sufficient eligible members to meet its minimum-link policy; two cabled links alone do not assure survivability. It would not implement the specifically required change. The immediate problem concerns vsf upgrade and member compatibility.
B:Deploy an approved compatible first-hop or active-gateway mechanism appropriate to the actual switch pair and topology. This instead concerns resilient gateway versus routing adjacency. Physical path redundancy does not automatically provide default-gateway availability; the applicable first-hop design must preserve an authorized gateway identity. It would not implement the specifically required change. The immediate problem concerns vsf upgrade and member compatibility.
C:Repair the supported VSX ISL LAG and peer configuration while keeping the redundant topology and consistency requirements intact. This instead concerns vsx inter-switch link integrity. A VSX deployment requires a healthy inter-switch link for coordinated peer functions; keepalive reachability alone does not replace it. It would not implement the specifically required change. The immediate problem concerns vsf upgrade and member compatibility.
Question 139
A campus VSF stack upgrade leaves one member on a mismatched software build, preventing it from joining cleanly. Following a targeted change, which acceptance test would most directly demonstrate success?
- Disconnect one approved test member and verify connectivity persists on the surviving link without LACP collapse.
- Confirm hosts retain the advertised gateway and approved traffic during a controlled single-router or peer failure.
- Validate compatible software on every member and a stable member topology after a staged reload or failover.
- Confirm the VSX peers and ISL report healthy roles and expected state synchronization under normal load.
Explanation
Correct Answer
C:Validate compatible software on every member and a stable member topology after a staged reload or failover. Stacking members must meet platform and software compatibility requirements; forcing an out-of-family member into a stack risks service interruption. The result tests actual working behavior, not merely a saved configuration. The decision applies to the described vsf upgrade and member compatibility situation.
Incorrect Answers
A:Disconnect one approved test member and verify connectivity persists on the surviving link without LACP collapse. This instead concerns lag member failure and redundancy. A redundant LAG must retain sufficient eligible members to meet its minimum-link policy; two cabled links alone do not assure survivability. It would not establish that this function actually works. The immediate problem concerns vsf upgrade and member compatibility.
B:Confirm hosts retain the advertised gateway and approved traffic during a controlled single-router or peer failure. This instead concerns resilient gateway versus routing adjacency. Physical path redundancy does not automatically provide default-gateway availability; the applicable first-hop design must preserve an authorized gateway identity. It would not establish that this function actually works. The immediate problem concerns vsf upgrade and member compatibility.
D:Confirm the VSX peers and ISL report healthy roles and expected state synchronization under normal load. This instead concerns vsx inter-switch link integrity. A VSX deployment requires a healthy inter-switch link for coordinated peer functions; keepalive reachability alone does not replace it. It would not establish that this function actually works. The immediate problem concerns vsf upgrade and member compatibility.
Question 140
A campus VSF stack upgrade leaves one member on a mismatched software build, preventing it from joining cleanly. The change fails acceptance. What is the safest targeted restoration action?
- Revert the minimum-link or LACP changes to known-good values and recover both members if acceptance traffic fails.
- Roll back to the last supported common stack image and isolate the incompatible member until a tested upgrade plan is ready.
- Restore the established gateway ownership and route tracking policy while remediating mismatched virtual-gateway state.
- Restore the previous stable ISL wiring and configuration before changing active-gateway behavior or reopening traffic.
Explanation
Correct Answer
B:Roll back to the last supported common stack image and isolate the incompatible member until a tested upgrade plan is ready. Stacking members must meet platform and software compatibility requirements; forcing an out-of-family member into a stack risks service interruption. The focused rollback restores a known safe baseline before another change attempt. The decision applies to the described vsf upgrade and member compatibility situation.
Incorrect Answers
A:Revert the minimum-link or LACP changes to known-good values and recover both members if acceptance traffic fails. This instead concerns lag member failure and redundancy. A redundant LAG must retain sufficient eligible members to meet its minimum-link policy; two cabled links alone do not assure survivability. It would not safely roll back the relevant failed change. The immediate problem concerns vsf upgrade and member compatibility.
C:Restore the established gateway ownership and route tracking policy while remediating mismatched virtual-gateway state. This instead concerns resilient gateway versus routing adjacency. Physical path redundancy does not automatically provide default-gateway availability; the applicable first-hop design must preserve an authorized gateway identity. It would not safely roll back the relevant failed change. The immediate problem concerns vsf upgrade and member compatibility.
D:Restore the previous stable ISL wiring and configuration before changing active-gateway behavior or reopening traffic. This instead concerns vsx inter-switch link integrity. A VSX deployment requires a healthy inter-switch link for coordinated peer functions; keepalive reachability alone does not replace it. It would not safely roll back the relevant failed change. The immediate problem concerns vsf upgrade and member compatibility.
