HP HPE7-A01 Practice Test 47
Question 460
A campus fabric prefers a slow backup OSPF link even though its high-speed primary is healthy. The change fails acceptance. What is the safest targeted restoration action?
- Restore the previous valid ASN and peer address if the revised neighbor relationship cannot establish.
- Restore the prior accepted cost values if the updated metric diverts traffic unexpectedly.
- Restore the previously approved outbound policy and withdraw unintended routes to prevent continued leakage.
- Reinstate the earlier least-privilege ACL and SVI policy if the adjustment expands access beyond scope.
Explanation
Correct Answer
B:Restore the prior accepted cost values if the updated metric diverts traffic unexpectedly. OSPF route cost influences path selection among eligible OSPF paths; it must reflect planned traffic engineering rather than simply interface link state. The focused rollback restores a known safe baseline before another change attempt. The decision applies to the described ospf path cost preference situation.
Incorrect Answers
A:Restore the previous valid ASN and peer address if the revised neighbor relationship cannot establish. This instead concerns bgp neighbor asn and tcp session. BGP peering requires correctly matched autonomous-system expectations and a reachable session path; routes cannot exchange without a valid peer. It would not safely roll back the relevant failed change. The immediate problem concerns ospf path cost preference.
C:Restore the previously approved outbound policy and withdraw unintended routes to prevent continued leakage. This instead concerns bgp prefix filtering outbound. BGP route advertisements require explicit filtering because a functioning neighbor session does not prove prefix-sharing authorization. It would not safely roll back the relevant failed change. The immediate problem concerns ospf path cost preference.
D:Reinstate the earlier least-privilege ACL and SVI policy if the adjustment expands access beyond scope. This instead concerns inter-vlan routing and acl scope. Inter-VLAN routing depends on both Layer 3 reachability and filtering; a connected gateway cannot override an explicit ACL denial. It would not safely roll back the relevant failed change. The immediate problem concerns ospf path cost preference.
Question 461
A distributed network has equal-cost OSPF routes despite an engineering requirement to prefer the direct fiber circuit. Before implementing a remedy, what should the engineer check first?
- Review effective OSPF interface costs and the selected path in each relevant routing table.
- Review BGP peer IP reachability, local and remote AS configuration and session error state.
- Review advertised-routes output, prefix-list or route-map matches and the exact remote peer policy.
- Review source and destination SVIs, VRFs, route lookup and the precise ACL rule matching sample traffic.
Explanation
Correct Answer
A:Review effective OSPF interface costs and the selected path in each relevant routing table. OSPF route cost influences path selection among eligible OSPF paths; it must reflect planned traffic engineering rather than simply interface link state. The evidence check isolates the relevant prerequisite before a disruptive change. The decision applies to the described ospf path cost preference situation.
Incorrect Answers
B:Review BGP peer IP reachability, local and remote AS configuration and session error state. This instead concerns bgp neighbor asn and tcp session. BGP peering requires correctly matched autonomous-system expectations and a reachable session path; routes cannot exchange without a valid peer. It does not isolate the cause of the stated incident. The immediate problem concerns ospf path cost preference.
C:Review advertised-routes output, prefix-list or route-map matches and the exact remote peer policy. This instead concerns bgp prefix filtering outbound. BGP route advertisements require explicit filtering because a functioning neighbor session does not prove prefix-sharing authorization. It does not isolate the cause of the stated incident. The immediate problem concerns ospf path cost preference.
D:Review source and destination SVIs, VRFs, route lookup and the precise ACL rule matching sample traffic. This instead concerns inter-vlan routing and acl scope. Inter-VLAN routing depends on both Layer 3 reachability and filtering; a connected gateway cannot override an explicit ACL denial. It does not isolate the cause of the stated incident. The immediate problem concerns ospf path cost preference.
Question 462
A distributed network has equal-cost OSPF routes despite an engineering requirement to prefer the direct fiber circuit. After the root cause is confirmed, which narrowly scoped configuration action should be selected?
- Repair the configured neighbor AS or intended local routing instance under the approved peering agreement.
- Constrain outbound BGP advertisement to approved prefixes and route-map matches for that peer for the affected campus deployment.
- Establish the narrow approved inter-VLAN permit or deny rule on the appropriate routed interface.
- Apply intentional supported OSPF costs consistent with design and bandwidth expectations.
Explanation
Correct Answer
D:Apply intentional supported OSPF costs consistent with design and bandwidth expectations. OSPF route cost influences path selection among eligible OSPF paths; it must reflect planned traffic engineering rather than simply interface link state. The proposed configuration targets the stated dependency without broadening unrelated access. The decision applies to the described ospf path cost preference situation.
Incorrect Answers
A:Repair the configured neighbor AS or intended local routing instance under the approved peering agreement. This instead concerns bgp neighbor asn and tcp session. BGP peering requires correctly matched autonomous-system expectations and a reachable session path; routes cannot exchange without a valid peer. It would not implement the specifically required change. The immediate problem concerns ospf path cost preference.
B:Constrain outbound BGP advertisement to approved prefixes and route-map matches for that peer for the affected campus deployment. This instead concerns bgp prefix filtering outbound. BGP route advertisements require explicit filtering because a functioning neighbor session does not prove prefix-sharing authorization. It would not implement the specifically required change. The immediate problem concerns ospf path cost preference.
C:Establish the narrow approved inter-VLAN permit or deny rule on the appropriate routed interface. This instead concerns inter-vlan routing and acl scope. Inter-VLAN routing depends on both Layer 3 reachability and filtering; a connected gateway cannot override an explicit ACL denial. It would not implement the specifically required change. The immediate problem concerns ospf path cost preference.
Question 463
A distributed network has equal-cost OSPF routes despite an engineering requirement to prefer the direct fiber circuit. A deployment job reports success. Which observed result would actually validate the affected service?
- Verify BGP Established state and receipt of the expected authorized prefixes.
- Confirm permitted routes are advertised while restricted lab or private prefixes disappear from the peer view.
- Confirm the primary next hop is selected while the backup becomes active after a controlled primary failure.
- Verify permitted client traffic succeeds and negative tests to restricted subnets remain blocked.
Explanation
Correct Answer
C:Confirm the primary next hop is selected while the backup becomes active after a controlled primary failure. OSPF route cost influences path selection among eligible OSPF paths; it must reflect planned traffic engineering rather than simply interface link state. The result tests actual working behavior, not merely a saved configuration. The decision applies to the described ospf path cost preference situation.
Incorrect Answers
A:Verify BGP Established state and receipt of the expected authorized prefixes. This instead concerns bgp neighbor asn and tcp session. BGP peering requires correctly matched autonomous-system expectations and a reachable session path; routes cannot exchange without a valid peer. It would not establish that this function actually works. The immediate problem concerns ospf path cost preference.
B:Confirm permitted routes are advertised while restricted lab or private prefixes disappear from the peer view. This instead concerns bgp prefix filtering outbound. BGP route advertisements require explicit filtering because a functioning neighbor session does not prove prefix-sharing authorization. It would not establish that this function actually works. The immediate problem concerns ospf path cost preference.
D:Verify permitted client traffic succeeds and negative tests to restricted subnets remain blocked. This instead concerns inter-vlan routing and acl scope. Inter-VLAN routing depends on both Layer 3 reachability and filtering; a connected gateway cannot override an explicit ACL denial. It would not establish that this function actually works. The immediate problem concerns ospf path cost preference.
Question 464
A distributed network has equal-cost OSPF routes despite an engineering requirement to prefer the direct fiber circuit. The review requires TWO complementary actions: one diagnostic check and one controlled configuration remedy. Select TWO actions that together meet those requirements.
- Review BGP peer IP reachability, local and remote AS configuration and session error state.
- Review effective OSPF interface costs and the selected path in each relevant routing table.
- Constrain outbound BGP advertisement to approved prefixes and route-map matches for that peer for the affected campus deployment.
- Apply intentional supported OSPF costs consistent with design and bandwidth expectations.
Explanation
Correct Answers
B:Review effective OSPF interface costs and the selected path in each relevant routing table. OSPF route cost influences path selection among eligible OSPF paths; it must reflect planned traffic engineering rather than simply interface link state. This is the required diagnosis or controlled remedy; the other keyed action supplies the complementary role. The decision applies to the described ospf path cost preference situation.
D:Apply intentional supported OSPF costs consistent with design and bandwidth expectations. OSPF route cost influences path selection among eligible OSPF paths; it must reflect planned traffic engineering rather than simply interface link state. This is the required diagnosis or controlled remedy; the other keyed action supplies the complementary role. The decision applies to the described ospf path cost preference situation.
Incorrect Answers
A:Review BGP peer IP reachability, local and remote AS configuration and session error state. This instead concerns bgp neighbor asn and tcp session. BGP peering requires correctly matched autonomous-system expectations and a reachable session path; routes cannot exchange without a valid peer. It is not one of the requested paired diagnosis and configuration actions. The immediate problem concerns ospf path cost preference.
C:Constrain outbound BGP advertisement to approved prefixes and route-map matches for that peer for the affected campus deployment. This instead concerns bgp prefix filtering outbound. BGP route advertisements require explicit filtering because a functioning neighbor session does not prove prefix-sharing authorization. It is not one of the requested paired diagnosis and configuration actions. The immediate problem concerns ospf path cost preference.
Question 465
An edge switch sees a BGP neighbor in Idle after the upstream provider changes its autonomous-system number. Which investigation would best isolate the immediate network dependency?
- Inspect advertised-routes output, prefix-list or route-map matches and the exact remote peer policy.
- Inspect BGP peer IP reachability, local and remote AS configuration and session error state.
- Inspect source and destination SVIs, VRFs, route lookup and the precise ACL rule matching sample traffic.
- Inspect ICMPv6 neighbor solicitation and advertisement exchange, interface reachability and neighbor cache state.
Explanation
Correct Answer
B:Inspect BGP peer IP reachability, local and remote AS configuration and session error state. BGP peering requires correctly matched autonomous-system expectations and a reachable session path; routes cannot exchange without a valid peer. The evidence check isolates the relevant prerequisite before a disruptive change. The decision applies to the described bgp neighbor asn and tcp session situation.
Incorrect Answers
A:Inspect advertised-routes output, prefix-list or route-map matches and the exact remote peer policy. This instead concerns bgp prefix filtering outbound. BGP route advertisements require explicit filtering because a functioning neighbor session does not prove prefix-sharing authorization. It does not isolate the cause of the stated incident. The immediate problem concerns bgp neighbor asn and tcp session.
C:Inspect source and destination SVIs, VRFs, route lookup and the precise ACL rule matching sample traffic. This instead concerns inter-vlan routing and acl scope. Inter-VLAN routing depends on both Layer 3 reachability and filtering; a connected gateway cannot override an explicit ACL denial. It does not isolate the cause of the stated incident. The immediate problem concerns bgp neighbor asn and tcp session.
D:Inspect ICMPv6 neighbor solicitation and advertisement exchange, interface reachability and neighbor cache state. This instead concerns ipv6 neighbor discovery and gateway reachability. IPv6 Neighbor Discovery replaces ARP for address resolution and requires particular ICMPv6 messages; overfiltering them blocks connectivity. It does not isolate the cause of the stated incident. The immediate problem concerns bgp neighbor asn and tcp session.
Question 466
An edge switch sees a BGP neighbor in Idle after the upstream provider changes its autonomous-system number. Which specific corrective design step best meets the stated campus requirement?
- Correct the configured neighbor AS or intended local routing instance under the approved peering agreement.
- Constrain outbound BGP advertisement to approved prefixes and route-map matches for that peer.
- Create the narrow approved inter-VLAN permit or deny rule on the appropriate routed interface.
- Restore valid IPv6 neighbor discovery behavior and approved gateway addressing while retaining required ICMPv6 control traffic.
Explanation
Correct Answer
A:Correct the configured neighbor AS or intended local routing instance under the approved peering agreement. BGP peering requires correctly matched autonomous-system expectations and a reachable session path; routes cannot exchange without a valid peer. The proposed configuration targets the stated dependency without broadening unrelated access. The decision applies to the described bgp neighbor asn and tcp session situation.
Incorrect Answers
B:Constrain outbound BGP advertisement to approved prefixes and route-map matches for that peer. This instead concerns bgp prefix filtering outbound. BGP route advertisements require explicit filtering because a functioning neighbor session does not prove prefix-sharing authorization. It would not implement the specifically required change. The immediate problem concerns bgp neighbor asn and tcp session.
C:Create the narrow approved inter-VLAN permit or deny rule on the appropriate routed interface. This instead concerns inter-vlan routing and acl scope. Inter-VLAN routing depends on both Layer 3 reachability and filtering; a connected gateway cannot override an explicit ACL denial. It would not implement the specifically required change. The immediate problem concerns bgp neighbor asn and tcp session.
D:Restore valid IPv6 neighbor discovery behavior and approved gateway addressing while retaining required ICMPv6 control traffic. This instead concerns ipv6 neighbor discovery and gateway reachability. IPv6 Neighbor Discovery replaces ARP for address resolution and requires particular ICMPv6 messages; overfiltering them blocks connectivity. It would not implement the specifically required change. The immediate problem concerns bgp neighbor asn and tcp session.
Question 467
An edge switch sees a BGP neighbor in Idle after the upstream provider changes its autonomous-system number. Following a targeted change, which acceptance test would most directly demonstrate success?
- Verify permitted routes are advertised while restricted lab or private prefixes disappear from the peer view.
- Confirm permitted client traffic succeeds and negative tests to restricted subnets remain blocked.
- Verify neighbor resolution and successful approved IPv6 connectivity after clearing only the affected stale entry.
- Confirm BGP Established state and receipt of the expected authorized prefixes.
Explanation
Correct Answer
D:Confirm BGP Established state and receipt of the expected authorized prefixes. BGP peering requires correctly matched autonomous-system expectations and a reachable session path; routes cannot exchange without a valid peer. The result tests actual working behavior, not merely a saved configuration. The decision applies to the described bgp neighbor asn and tcp session situation.
Incorrect Answers
A:Verify permitted routes are advertised while restricted lab or private prefixes disappear from the peer view. This instead concerns bgp prefix filtering outbound. BGP route advertisements require explicit filtering because a functioning neighbor session does not prove prefix-sharing authorization. It would not establish that this function actually works. The immediate problem concerns bgp neighbor asn and tcp session.
B:Confirm permitted client traffic succeeds and negative tests to restricted subnets remain blocked. This instead concerns inter-vlan routing and acl scope. Inter-VLAN routing depends on both Layer 3 reachability and filtering; a connected gateway cannot override an explicit ACL denial. It would not establish that this function actually works. The immediate problem concerns bgp neighbor asn and tcp session.
C:Verify neighbor resolution and successful approved IPv6 connectivity after clearing only the affected stale entry. This instead concerns ipv6 neighbor discovery and gateway reachability. IPv6 Neighbor Discovery replaces ARP for address resolution and requires particular ICMPv6 messages; overfiltering them blocks connectivity. It would not establish that this function actually works. The immediate problem concerns bgp neighbor asn and tcp session.
Question 468
An edge switch sees a BGP neighbor in Idle after the upstream provider changes its autonomous-system number. The change fails acceptance. What is the safest targeted restoration action?
- Restore the previously approved outbound policy and withdraw unintended routes to prevent continued leakage.
- Reinstate the earlier least-privilege ACL and SVI policy if the adjustment expands access beyond scope.
- Restore the previous valid ASN and peer address if the revised neighbor relationship cannot establish.
- Return to the known-good IPv6 gateway and filtering configuration if the change breaks NDP.
Explanation
Correct Answer
C:Restore the previous valid ASN and peer address if the revised neighbor relationship cannot establish. BGP peering requires correctly matched autonomous-system expectations and a reachable session path; routes cannot exchange without a valid peer. The focused rollback restores a known safe baseline before another change attempt. The decision applies to the described bgp neighbor asn and tcp session situation.
Incorrect Answers
A:Restore the previously approved outbound policy and withdraw unintended routes to prevent continued leakage. This instead concerns bgp prefix filtering outbound. BGP route advertisements require explicit filtering because a functioning neighbor session does not prove prefix-sharing authorization. It would not safely roll back the relevant failed change. The immediate problem concerns bgp neighbor asn and tcp session.
B:Reinstate the earlier least-privilege ACL and SVI policy if the adjustment expands access beyond scope. This instead concerns inter-vlan routing and acl scope. Inter-VLAN routing depends on both Layer 3 reachability and filtering; a connected gateway cannot override an explicit ACL denial. It would not safely roll back the relevant failed change. The immediate problem concerns bgp neighbor asn and tcp session.
D:Return to the known-good IPv6 gateway and filtering configuration if the change breaks NDP. This instead concerns ipv6 neighbor discovery and gateway reachability. IPv6 Neighbor Discovery replaces ARP for address resolution and requires particular ICMPv6 messages; overfiltering them blocks connectivity. It would not safely roll back the relevant failed change. The immediate problem concerns bgp neighbor asn and tcp session.
Question 469
A campus WAN BGP peer never reaches Established because local and remote neighbor AS values differ after migration. Before implementing a remedy, what should the engineer check first?
- Review advertised-routes output, prefix-list or route-map matches and the exact remote peer policy.
- Review BGP peer IP reachability, local and remote AS configuration and session error state.
- Review source and destination SVIs, VRFs, route lookup and the precise ACL rule matching sample traffic.
- Review ICMPv6 neighbor solicitation and advertisement exchange, interface reachability and neighbor cache state.
Explanation
Correct Answer
B:Review BGP peer IP reachability, local and remote AS configuration and session error state. BGP peering requires correctly matched autonomous-system expectations and a reachable session path; routes cannot exchange without a valid peer. The evidence check isolates the relevant prerequisite before a disruptive change. The decision applies to the described bgp neighbor asn and tcp session situation.
Incorrect Answers
A:Review advertised-routes output, prefix-list or route-map matches and the exact remote peer policy. This instead concerns bgp prefix filtering outbound. BGP route advertisements require explicit filtering because a functioning neighbor session does not prove prefix-sharing authorization. It does not isolate the cause of the stated incident. The immediate problem concerns bgp neighbor asn and tcp session.
C:Review source and destination SVIs, VRFs, route lookup and the precise ACL rule matching sample traffic. This instead concerns inter-vlan routing and acl scope. Inter-VLAN routing depends on both Layer 3 reachability and filtering; a connected gateway cannot override an explicit ACL denial. It does not isolate the cause of the stated incident. The immediate problem concerns bgp neighbor asn and tcp session.
D:Review ICMPv6 neighbor solicitation and advertisement exchange, interface reachability and neighbor cache state. This instead concerns ipv6 neighbor discovery and gateway reachability. IPv6 Neighbor Discovery replaces ARP for address resolution and requires particular ICMPv6 messages; overfiltering them blocks connectivity. It does not isolate the cause of the stated incident. The immediate problem concerns bgp neighbor asn and tcp session.
Question 470
A campus WAN BGP peer never reaches Established because local and remote neighbor AS values differ after migration. After the root cause is confirmed, which narrowly scoped configuration action should be selected?
- Repair the configured neighbor AS or intended local routing instance under the approved peering agreement.
- Constrain outbound BGP advertisement to approved prefixes and route-map matches for that peer for the affected campus deployment.
- Establish the narrow approved inter-VLAN permit or deny rule on the appropriate routed interface.
- Reinstate valid IPv6 neighbor discovery behavior and approved gateway addressing while retaining required ICMPv6 control traffic.
Explanation
Correct Answer
A:Repair the configured neighbor AS or intended local routing instance under the approved peering agreement. BGP peering requires correctly matched autonomous-system expectations and a reachable session path; routes cannot exchange without a valid peer. The proposed configuration targets the stated dependency without broadening unrelated access. The decision applies to the described bgp neighbor asn and tcp session situation.
Incorrect Answers
B:Constrain outbound BGP advertisement to approved prefixes and route-map matches for that peer for the affected campus deployment. This instead concerns bgp prefix filtering outbound. BGP route advertisements require explicit filtering because a functioning neighbor session does not prove prefix-sharing authorization. It would not implement the specifically required change. The immediate problem concerns bgp neighbor asn and tcp session.
C:Establish the narrow approved inter-VLAN permit or deny rule on the appropriate routed interface. This instead concerns inter-vlan routing and acl scope. Inter-VLAN routing depends on both Layer 3 reachability and filtering; a connected gateway cannot override an explicit ACL denial. It would not implement the specifically required change. The immediate problem concerns bgp neighbor asn and tcp session.
D:Reinstate valid IPv6 neighbor discovery behavior and approved gateway addressing while retaining required ICMPv6 control traffic. This instead concerns ipv6 neighbor discovery and gateway reachability. IPv6 Neighbor Discovery replaces ARP for address resolution and requires particular ICMPv6 messages; overfiltering them blocks connectivity. It would not implement the specifically required change. The immediate problem concerns bgp neighbor asn and tcp session.
