HP HPE7-A01 Practice Test 23
Question 220
An office desk port permits one endpoint MAC but a connected IP phone and attached PC require two authorized identities. The change fails acceptance. What is the safest targeted restoration action?
- Return the downstream connection to its last stable LACP design while repairing peer multichassis configuration.
- Restore a least-privilege snooping trust policy and remove the rogue server before clearing client leases.
- Restore valid DHCP bindings or tightly scoped exceptions for affected static devices while keeping spoofed frames blocked.
- Restore the prior secure profile and connect only the authorized endpoint while reviewing any needed exception.
Explanation
Correct Answer
D:Restore the prior secure profile and connect only the authorized endpoint while reviewing any needed exception. A MAC limit must reflect legitimate devices and threat policy; increasing it blindly can conceal an unauthorized downstream bridge. The focused rollback restores a known safe baseline before another change attempt. The decision applies to the described port-security mac limits situation.
Incorrect Answers
A:Return the downstream connection to its last stable LACP design while repairing peer multichassis configuration. This instead concerns vsx multi-chassis lag. VSX LAG provides a coordinated logical bundle across two control planes; two independent plain LAGs are not a substitute. It would not safely roll back the relevant failed change. The immediate problem concerns port-security mac limits.
B:Restore a least-privilege snooping trust policy and remove the rogue server before clearing client leases. This instead concerns dhcp snooping trust boundary. DHCP snooping relies on a precise trust boundary; trusting a client port permits unauthorized DHCP servers to inject offers. It would not safely roll back the relevant failed change. The immediate problem concerns port-security mac limits.
C:Restore valid DHCP bindings or tightly scoped exceptions for affected static devices while keeping spoofed frames blocked. This instead concerns dynamic arp inspection bindings. Dynamic ARP inspection can enforce IP-to-MAC bindings and reduce forged neighbor claims; DHCP snooping alone does not inspect every ARP reply. It would not safely roll back the relevant failed change. The immediate problem concerns port-security mac limits.
Question 221
A lab switchport shuts after a legitimate dock presents multiple MAC addresses beyond its configured client limit. Before implementing a remedy, what should the engineer check first?
- Review VSX LAG interface configuration, peer synchronization and downstream LACP partner state.
- Review snooping enabled VLANs, trusted-port assignment and DHCP offer source interfaces.
- Review secure MAC learning, violation counters and the required number of authorized devices on the port.
- Review dynamic ARP inspection VLAN scope, DHCP snooping bindings and drop counters for the offending ingress port.
Explanation
Correct Answer
C:Review secure MAC learning, violation counters and the required number of authorized devices on the port. A MAC limit must reflect legitimate devices and threat policy; increasing it blindly can conceal an unauthorized downstream bridge. The evidence check isolates the relevant prerequisite before a disruptive change. The decision applies to the described port-security mac limits situation.
Incorrect Answers
A:Review VSX LAG interface configuration, peer synchronization and downstream LACP partner state. This instead concerns vsx multi-chassis lag. VSX LAG provides a coordinated logical bundle across two control planes; two independent plain LAGs are not a substitute. It does not isolate the cause of the stated incident. The immediate problem concerns port-security mac limits.
B:Review snooping enabled VLANs, trusted-port assignment and DHCP offer source interfaces. This instead concerns dhcp snooping trust boundary. DHCP snooping relies on a precise trust boundary; trusting a client port permits unauthorized DHCP servers to inject offers. It does not isolate the cause of the stated incident. The immediate problem concerns port-security mac limits.
D:Review dynamic ARP inspection VLAN scope, DHCP snooping bindings and drop counters for the offending ingress port. This instead concerns dynamic arp inspection bindings. Dynamic ARP inspection can enforce IP-to-MAC bindings and reduce forged neighbor claims; DHCP snooping alone does not inspect every ARP reply. It does not isolate the cause of the stated incident. The immediate problem concerns port-security mac limits.
Question 222
A lab switchport shuts after a legitimate dock presents multiple MAC addresses beyond its configured client limit. The review requires TWO complementary actions: one diagnostic check and one controlled configuration remedy. Select TWO actions that together meet those requirements.
- Review VSX LAG interface configuration, peer synchronization and downstream LACP partner state.
- Review secure MAC learning, violation counters and the required number of authorized devices on the port.
- Trust only legitimate server-facing paths while leaving user-facing ports untrusted under the supported snooping policy for the affected campus deployment.
- Apply a justified port-security limit or approved access policy for the actual endpoint composition without permitting unbounded clients.
Explanation
Correct Answers
B:Review secure MAC learning, violation counters and the required number of authorized devices on the port. A MAC limit must reflect legitimate devices and threat policy; increasing it blindly can conceal an unauthorized downstream bridge. This is the required diagnosis or controlled remedy; the other keyed action supplies the complementary role. The decision applies to the described port-security mac limits situation.
D:Apply a justified port-security limit or approved access policy for the actual endpoint composition without permitting unbounded clients. A MAC limit must reflect legitimate devices and threat policy; increasing it blindly can conceal an unauthorized downstream bridge. This is the required diagnosis or controlled remedy; the other keyed action supplies the complementary role. The decision applies to the described port-security mac limits situation.
Incorrect Answers
A:Review VSX LAG interface configuration, peer synchronization and downstream LACP partner state. This instead concerns vsx multi-chassis lag. VSX LAG provides a coordinated logical bundle across two control planes; two independent plain LAGs are not a substitute. It is not one of the requested paired diagnosis and configuration actions. The immediate problem concerns port-security mac limits.
C:Trust only legitimate server-facing paths while leaving user-facing ports untrusted under the supported snooping policy for the affected campus deployment. This instead concerns dhcp snooping trust boundary. DHCP snooping relies on a precise trust boundary; trusting a client port permits unauthorized DHCP servers to inject offers. It is not one of the requested paired diagnosis and configuration actions. The immediate problem concerns port-security mac limits.
Question 223
A lab switchport shuts after a legitimate dock presents multiple MAC addresses beyond its configured client limit. A deployment job reports success. Which observed result would actually validate the affected service?
- Confirm both intended endpoints learn securely and an additional unauthorized MAC still produces the designed violation.
- Confirm both paths join the same logical LAG and remain usable during a controlled failure of one VSX peer.
- Confirm an authorized DHCP server delivers leases and an untrusted test offer is discarded with a logged violation.
- Verify forged ARP replies are rejected and legitimate bound hosts continue reaching the correct gateway MAC.
Explanation
Correct Answer
A:Confirm both intended endpoints learn securely and an additional unauthorized MAC still produces the designed violation. A MAC limit must reflect legitimate devices and threat policy; increasing it blindly can conceal an unauthorized downstream bridge. The result tests actual working behavior, not merely a saved configuration. The decision applies to the described port-security mac limits situation.
Incorrect Answers
B:Confirm both paths join the same logical LAG and remain usable during a controlled failure of one VSX peer. This instead concerns vsx multi-chassis lag. VSX LAG provides a coordinated logical bundle across two control planes; two independent plain LAGs are not a substitute. It would not establish that this function actually works. The immediate problem concerns port-security mac limits.
C:Confirm an authorized DHCP server delivers leases and an untrusted test offer is discarded with a logged violation. This instead concerns dhcp snooping trust boundary. DHCP snooping relies on a precise trust boundary; trusting a client port permits unauthorized DHCP servers to inject offers. It would not establish that this function actually works. The immediate problem concerns port-security mac limits.
D:Verify forged ARP replies are rejected and legitimate bound hosts continue reaching the correct gateway MAC. This instead concerns dynamic arp inspection bindings. Dynamic ARP inspection can enforce IP-to-MAC bindings and reduce forged neighbor claims; DHCP snooping alone does not inspect every ARP reply. It would not establish that this function actually works. The immediate problem concerns port-security mac limits.
Question 224
A lab switchport shuts after a legitimate dock presents multiple MAC addresses beyond its configured client limit. If the revised setting disrupts users, which controlled rollback would be most relevant?
- Return the downstream connection to its last stable LACP design while repairing peer multichassis configuration.
- Reinstate a least-privilege snooping trust policy and remove the rogue server before clearing client leases.
- Reinstate valid DHCP bindings or tightly scoped exceptions for affected static devices while keeping spoofed frames blocked.
- Reinstate the prior secure profile and connect only the authorized endpoint while reviewing any needed exception.
Explanation
Correct Answer
D:Reinstate the prior secure profile and connect only the authorized endpoint while reviewing any needed exception. A MAC limit must reflect legitimate devices and threat policy; increasing it blindly can conceal an unauthorized downstream bridge. The focused rollback restores a known safe baseline before another change attempt. The decision applies to the described port-security mac limits situation.
Incorrect Answers
A:Return the downstream connection to its last stable LACP design while repairing peer multichassis configuration. This instead concerns vsx multi-chassis lag. VSX LAG provides a coordinated logical bundle across two control planes; two independent plain LAGs are not a substitute. It would not safely roll back the relevant failed change. The immediate problem concerns port-security mac limits. For the incident in this item: A lab switchport shuts after a legitimate dock presents multiple MAC addresses beyond its configured client limit.
B:Reinstate a least-privilege snooping trust policy and remove the rogue server before clearing client leases. This instead concerns dhcp snooping trust boundary. DHCP snooping relies on a precise trust boundary; trusting a client port permits unauthorized DHCP servers to inject offers. It would not safely roll back the relevant failed change. The immediate problem concerns port-security mac limits.
C:Reinstate valid DHCP bindings or tightly scoped exceptions for affected static devices while keeping spoofed frames blocked. This instead concerns dynamic arp inspection bindings. Dynamic ARP inspection can enforce IP-to-MAC bindings and reduce forged neighbor claims; DHCP snooping alone does not inspect every ARP reply. It would not safely roll back the relevant failed change. The immediate problem concerns port-security mac limits.
Question 225
A dual-homed access switch has one uplink to each VSX peer but the two links form separate aggregators instead of a single multichassis bundle. Which investigation would best isolate the immediate network dependency?
- Inspect snooping enabled VLANs, trusted-port assignment and DHCP offer source interfaces.
- Inspect dynamic ARP inspection VLAN scope, DHCP snooping bindings and drop counters for the offending ingress port.
- Inspect IGMP querier availability, learned group memberships and multicast forwarding ports on the VLAN.
- Inspect VSX LAG interface configuration, peer synchronization and downstream LACP partner state.
Explanation
Correct Answer
D:Inspect VSX LAG interface configuration, peer synchronization and downstream LACP partner state. VSX LAG provides a coordinated logical bundle across two control planes; two independent plain LAGs are not a substitute. The evidence check isolates the relevant prerequisite before a disruptive change. The decision applies to the described vsx multi-chassis lag situation.
Incorrect Answers
A:Inspect snooping enabled VLANs, trusted-port assignment and DHCP offer source interfaces. This instead concerns dhcp snooping trust boundary. DHCP snooping relies on a precise trust boundary; trusting a client port permits unauthorized DHCP servers to inject offers. It does not isolate the cause of the stated incident. The immediate problem concerns vsx multi-chassis lag.
B:Inspect dynamic ARP inspection VLAN scope, DHCP snooping bindings and drop counters for the offending ingress port. This instead concerns dynamic arp inspection bindings. Dynamic ARP inspection can enforce IP-to-MAC bindings and reduce forged neighbor claims; DHCP snooping alone does not inspect every ARP reply. It does not isolate the cause of the stated incident. The immediate problem concerns vsx multi-chassis lag.
C:Inspect IGMP querier availability, learned group memberships and multicast forwarding ports on the VLAN. This instead concerns igmp snooping multicast membership. IGMP snooping constrains multicast delivery based on reported listeners, and a querier maintains membership state over time. It does not isolate the cause of the stated incident. The immediate problem concerns vsx multi-chassis lag.
Question 226
A dual-homed access switch has one uplink to each VSX peer but the two links form separate aggregators instead of a single multichassis bundle. Which specific corrective design step best meets the stated campus requirement?
- Trust only legitimate server-facing paths while leaving user-facing ports untrusted under the supported snooping policy.
- Enable validated ARP inspection against trustworthy bindings or supported static exceptions without trusting all client ports.
- Build the supported multichassis LAG consistently on VSX peers and the downstream switch according to the approved topology.
- Enable compatible IGMP snooping with a reachable querier and approved multicast groups for the affected segment.
Explanation
Correct Answer
C:Build the supported multichassis LAG consistently on VSX peers and the downstream switch according to the approved topology. VSX LAG provides a coordinated logical bundle across two control planes; two independent plain LAGs are not a substitute. The proposed configuration targets the stated dependency without broadening unrelated access. The decision applies to the described vsx multi-chassis lag situation.
Incorrect Answers
A:Trust only legitimate server-facing paths while leaving user-facing ports untrusted under the supported snooping policy. This instead concerns dhcp snooping trust boundary. DHCP snooping relies on a precise trust boundary; trusting a client port permits unauthorized DHCP servers to inject offers. It would not implement the specifically required change. The immediate problem concerns vsx multi-chassis lag.
B:Enable validated ARP inspection against trustworthy bindings or supported static exceptions without trusting all client ports. This instead concerns dynamic arp inspection bindings. Dynamic ARP inspection can enforce IP-to-MAC bindings and reduce forged neighbor claims; DHCP snooping alone does not inspect every ARP reply. It would not implement the specifically required change. The immediate problem concerns vsx multi-chassis lag.
D:Enable compatible IGMP snooping with a reachable querier and approved multicast groups for the affected segment. This instead concerns igmp snooping multicast membership. IGMP snooping constrains multicast delivery based on reported listeners, and a querier maintains membership state over time. It would not implement the specifically required change. The immediate problem concerns vsx multi-chassis lag.
Question 227
A dual-homed access switch has one uplink to each VSX peer but the two links form separate aggregators instead of a single multichassis bundle. Following a targeted change, which acceptance test would most directly demonstrate success?
- Verify an authorized DHCP server delivers leases and an untrusted test offer is discarded with a logged violation.
- Verify both paths join the same logical LAG and remain usable during a controlled failure of one VSX peer.
- Confirm forged ARP replies are rejected and legitimate bound hosts continue reaching the correct gateway MAC.
- Verify only subscribed receiver ports receive the test stream while membership survives the query interval.
Explanation
Correct Answer
B:Verify both paths join the same logical LAG and remain usable during a controlled failure of one VSX peer. VSX LAG provides a coordinated logical bundle across two control planes; two independent plain LAGs are not a substitute. The result tests actual working behavior, not merely a saved configuration. The decision applies to the described vsx multi-chassis lag situation.
Incorrect Answers
A:Verify an authorized DHCP server delivers leases and an untrusted test offer is discarded with a logged violation. This instead concerns dhcp snooping trust boundary. DHCP snooping relies on a precise trust boundary; trusting a client port permits unauthorized DHCP servers to inject offers. It would not establish that this function actually works. The immediate problem concerns vsx multi-chassis lag.
C:Confirm forged ARP replies are rejected and legitimate bound hosts continue reaching the correct gateway MAC. This instead concerns dynamic arp inspection bindings. Dynamic ARP inspection can enforce IP-to-MAC bindings and reduce forged neighbor claims; DHCP snooping alone does not inspect every ARP reply. It would not establish that this function actually works. The immediate problem concerns vsx multi-chassis lag.
D:Verify only subscribed receiver ports receive the test stream while membership survives the query interval. This instead concerns igmp snooping multicast membership. IGMP snooping constrains multicast delivery based on reported listeners, and a querier maintains membership state over time. It would not establish that this function actually works. The immediate problem concerns vsx multi-chassis lag.
Question 228
A dual-homed access switch has one uplink to each VSX peer but the two links form separate aggregators instead of a single multichassis bundle. The change fails acceptance. What is the safest targeted restoration action?
- Return the downstream connection to its last stable LACP design while repairing peer multichassis configuration.
- Restore a least-privilege snooping trust policy and remove the rogue server before clearing client leases.
- Restore valid DHCP bindings or tightly scoped exceptions for affected static devices while keeping spoofed frames blocked.
- Restore a working querier and last known multicast forwarding configuration to recover legitimate receivers.
Explanation
Correct Answer
A:Return the downstream connection to its last stable LACP design while repairing peer multichassis configuration. VSX LAG provides a coordinated logical bundle across two control planes; two independent plain LAGs are not a substitute. The focused rollback restores a known safe baseline before another change attempt. The decision applies to the described vsx multi-chassis lag situation.
Incorrect Answers
B:Restore a least-privilege snooping trust policy and remove the rogue server before clearing client leases. This instead concerns dhcp snooping trust boundary. DHCP snooping relies on a precise trust boundary; trusting a client port permits unauthorized DHCP servers to inject offers. It would not safely roll back the relevant failed change. The immediate problem concerns vsx multi-chassis lag.
C:Restore valid DHCP bindings or tightly scoped exceptions for affected static devices while keeping spoofed frames blocked. This instead concerns dynamic arp inspection bindings. Dynamic ARP inspection can enforce IP-to-MAC bindings and reduce forged neighbor claims; DHCP snooping alone does not inspect every ARP reply. It would not safely roll back the relevant failed change. The immediate problem concerns vsx multi-chassis lag.
D:Restore a working querier and last known multicast forwarding configuration to recover legitimate receivers. This instead concerns igmp snooping multicast membership. IGMP snooping constrains multicast delivery based on reported listeners, and a querier maintains membership state over time. It would not safely roll back the relevant failed change. The immediate problem concerns vsx multi-chassis lag.
Question 229
A campus distribution pair advertises inconsistent LACP partner identity to a downstream switch after VSX LAG membership changes. The review requires TWO complementary actions: one diagnostic check and one controlled configuration remedy. Select TWO actions that together meet those requirements.
- Review snooping enabled VLANs, trusted-port assignment and DHCP offer source interfaces.
- Review VSX LAG interface configuration, peer synchronization and downstream LACP partner state.
- Activate validated ARP inspection against trustworthy bindings or supported static exceptions without trusting all client ports.
- Create the supported multichassis LAG consistently on VSX peers and the downstream switch according to the approved topology.
Explanation
Correct Answers
B:Review VSX LAG interface configuration, peer synchronization and downstream LACP partner state. VSX LAG provides a coordinated logical bundle across two control planes; two independent plain LAGs are not a substitute. This is the required diagnosis or controlled remedy; the other keyed action supplies the complementary role. The decision applies to the described vsx multi-chassis lag situation.
D:Create the supported multichassis LAG consistently on VSX peers and the downstream switch according to the approved topology. VSX LAG provides a coordinated logical bundle across two control planes; two independent plain LAGs are not a substitute. This is the required diagnosis or controlled remedy; the other keyed action supplies the complementary role. The decision applies to the described vsx multi-chassis lag situation.
Incorrect Answers
A:Review snooping enabled VLANs, trusted-port assignment and DHCP offer source interfaces. This instead concerns dhcp snooping trust boundary. DHCP snooping relies on a precise trust boundary; trusting a client port permits unauthorized DHCP servers to inject offers. It is not one of the requested paired diagnosis and configuration actions. The immediate problem concerns vsx multi-chassis lag.
C:Activate validated ARP inspection against trustworthy bindings or supported static exceptions without trusting all client ports. This instead concerns dynamic arp inspection bindings. Dynamic ARP inspection can enforce IP-to-MAC bindings and reduce forged neighbor claims; DHCP snooping alone does not inspect every ARP reply. It is not one of the requested paired diagnosis and configuration actions. The immediate problem concerns vsx multi-chassis lag.
Question 230
A campus distribution pair advertises inconsistent LACP partner identity to a downstream switch after VSX LAG membership changes. After the root cause is confirmed, which narrowly scoped configuration action should be selected?
- Trust only legitimate server-facing paths while leaving user-facing ports untrusted under the supported snooping policy for the affected campus deployment.
- Activate validated ARP inspection against trustworthy bindings or supported static exceptions without trusting all client ports.
- Create the supported multichassis LAG consistently on VSX peers and the downstream switch according to the approved topology.
- Activate compatible IGMP snooping with a reachable querier and approved multicast groups for the affected segment.
Explanation
Correct Answer
C:Create the supported multichassis LAG consistently on VSX peers and the downstream switch according to the approved topology. VSX LAG provides a coordinated logical bundle across two control planes; two independent plain LAGs are not a substitute. The proposed configuration targets the stated dependency without broadening unrelated access. The decision applies to the described vsx multi-chassis lag situation.
Incorrect Answers
A:Trust only legitimate server-facing paths while leaving user-facing ports untrusted under the supported snooping policy for the affected campus deployment. This instead concerns dhcp snooping trust boundary. DHCP snooping relies on a precise trust boundary; trusting a client port permits unauthorized DHCP servers to inject offers. It would not implement the specifically required change. The immediate problem concerns vsx multi-chassis lag.
B:Activate validated ARP inspection against trustworthy bindings or supported static exceptions without trusting all client ports. This instead concerns dynamic arp inspection bindings. Dynamic ARP inspection can enforce IP-to-MAC bindings and reduce forged neighbor claims; DHCP snooping alone does not inspect every ARP reply. It would not implement the specifically required change. The immediate problem concerns vsx multi-chassis lag.
D:Activate compatible IGMP snooping with a reachable querier and approved multicast groups for the affected segment. This instead concerns igmp snooping multicast membership. IGMP snooping constrains multicast delivery based on reported listeners, and a querier maintains membership state over time. It would not implement the specifically required change. The immediate problem concerns vsx multi-chassis lag.
