HP HPE7-A01 Practice Test 49
Question 480
A managed WAN neighbor receives too many campus routes because an outbound route-map now permits the wrong prefix set. If the revised setting disrupts users, which controlled rollback would be most relevant?
- Restore the earlier least-privilege ACL and SVI policy if the adjustment expands access beyond scope.
- Return to the known-good IPv6 gateway and filtering configuration if the change breaks NDP.
- Eliminate or revert the overly broad policy route and restore normal forwarding until its selectors are corrected.
- Reinstate the previously approved outbound policy and withdraw unintended routes to prevent continued leakage.
Explanation
Correct Answer
D:Reinstate the previously approved outbound policy and withdraw unintended routes to prevent continued leakage. BGP route advertisements require explicit filtering because a functioning neighbor session does not prove prefix-sharing authorization. The focused rollback restores a known safe baseline before another change attempt. The decision applies to the described bgp prefix filtering outbound situation.
Incorrect Answers
A:Restore 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 prefix filtering outbound.
B: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 prefix filtering outbound. For the incident in this item: A managed WAN neighbor receives too many campus routes because an outbound route-map now permits the wrong prefix set.
C:Eliminate or revert the overly broad policy route and restore normal forwarding until its selectors are corrected. This instead concerns policy-based routing exception. Policy routing can override ordinary destination-based decisions for explicitly matched traffic; overly broad matches cause path surprises. It would not safely roll back the relevant failed change. The immediate problem concerns bgp prefix filtering outbound.
Question 481
Staff clients can access the internet but cannot reach an authorized printer subnet because an SVI ACL blocks their traffic. Which investigation would best isolate the immediate network dependency?
- Inspect ICMPv6 neighbor solicitation and advertisement exchange, interface reachability and neighbor cache state.
- Inspect route policy match order, source and destination selectors, configured next hop and fallback behavior.
- Inspect interface-to-VRF membership, route tables and explicit route-leaking policies for the tenant.
- Inspect source and destination SVIs, VRFs, route lookup and the precise ACL rule matching sample traffic.
Explanation
Correct Answer
D:Inspect source and destination SVIs, VRFs, route lookup and the precise ACL rule matching sample traffic. Inter-VLAN routing depends on both Layer 3 reachability and filtering; a connected gateway cannot override an explicit ACL denial. The evidence check isolates the relevant prerequisite before a disruptive change. The decision applies to the described inter-vlan routing and acl scope situation.
Incorrect Answers
A: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 inter-vlan routing and acl scope.
B:Inspect route policy match order, source and destination selectors, configured next hop and fallback behavior. This instead concerns policy-based routing exception. Policy routing can override ordinary destination-based decisions for explicitly matched traffic; overly broad matches cause path surprises. It does not isolate the cause of the stated incident. The immediate problem concerns inter-vlan routing and acl scope.
C:Inspect interface-to-VRF membership, route tables and explicit route-leaking policies for the tenant. This instead concerns routing vrfs and tenant isolation. VRFs partition forwarding and routing instances; a VLAN alone is not an isolated routing domain when the gateway is misplaced. It does not isolate the cause of the stated incident. The immediate problem concerns inter-vlan routing and acl scope.
Question 482
Staff clients can access the internet but cannot reach an authorized printer subnet because an SVI ACL blocks their traffic. Which specific corrective design step best meets the stated campus requirement?
- Restore valid IPv6 neighbor discovery behavior and approved gateway addressing while retaining required ICMPv6 control traffic.
- Apply tightly scoped policy-based routing for authorized traffic while retaining correct ordinary routing for other hosts.
- Create the narrow approved inter-VLAN permit or deny rule on the appropriate routed interface.
- Assign routed interfaces to the correct supported VRF and permit only approved inter-VRF access.
Explanation
Correct Answer
C:Create the narrow approved inter-VLAN permit or deny rule on the appropriate routed interface. Inter-VLAN routing depends on both Layer 3 reachability and filtering; a connected gateway cannot override an explicit ACL denial. The proposed configuration targets the stated dependency without broadening unrelated access. The decision applies to the described inter-vlan routing and acl scope situation.
Incorrect Answers
A: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 inter-vlan routing and acl scope.
B:Apply tightly scoped policy-based routing for authorized traffic while retaining correct ordinary routing for other hosts. This instead concerns policy-based routing exception. Policy routing can override ordinary destination-based decisions for explicitly matched traffic; overly broad matches cause path surprises. It would not implement the specifically required change. The immediate problem concerns inter-vlan routing and acl scope.
D:Assign routed interfaces to the correct supported VRF and permit only approved inter-VRF access. This instead concerns routing vrfs and tenant isolation. VRFs partition forwarding and routing instances; a VLAN alone is not an isolated routing domain when the gateway is misplaced. It would not implement the specifically required change. The immediate problem concerns inter-vlan routing and acl scope.
Question 483
Staff clients can access the internet but cannot reach an authorized printer subnet because an SVI ACL blocks their traffic. Following a targeted change, which acceptance test would most directly demonstrate success?
- Verify neighbor resolution and successful approved IPv6 connectivity after clearing only the affected stale entry.
- Confirm permitted client traffic succeeds and negative tests to restricted subnets remain blocked.
- Confirm selected test flows take the policy path and unmatched traffic follows the standard routing table.
- Verify each tenant route table is isolated and only intentional cross-VRF traffic is reachable.
Explanation
Correct Answer
B:Confirm permitted client traffic succeeds and negative tests to restricted subnets remain blocked. Inter-VLAN routing depends on both Layer 3 reachability and filtering; a connected gateway cannot override an explicit ACL denial. The result tests actual working behavior, not merely a saved configuration. The decision applies to the described inter-vlan routing and acl scope situation.
Incorrect Answers
A: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 inter-vlan routing and acl scope.
C:Confirm selected test flows take the policy path and unmatched traffic follows the standard routing table. This instead concerns policy-based routing exception. Policy routing can override ordinary destination-based decisions for explicitly matched traffic; overly broad matches cause path surprises. It would not establish that this function actually works. The immediate problem concerns inter-vlan routing and acl scope.
D:Verify each tenant route table is isolated and only intentional cross-VRF traffic is reachable. This instead concerns routing vrfs and tenant isolation. VRFs partition forwarding and routing instances; a VLAN alone is not an isolated routing domain when the gateway is misplaced. It would not establish that this function actually works. The immediate problem concerns inter-vlan routing and acl scope.
Question 484
Staff clients can access the internet but cannot reach an authorized printer subnet because an SVI ACL blocks their traffic. The change fails acceptance. What is the safest targeted restoration action?
- Reinstate the earlier least-privilege ACL and SVI policy if the adjustment expands access beyond scope.
- Return to the known-good IPv6 gateway and filtering configuration if the change breaks NDP.
- Remove or revert the overly broad policy route and restore normal forwarding until its selectors are corrected.
- Restore the former tenant interface and VRF mappings if migration introduces unintended route exposure.
Explanation
Correct Answer
A:Reinstate the earlier least-privilege ACL and SVI policy if the adjustment expands access beyond scope. Inter-VLAN routing depends on both Layer 3 reachability and filtering; a connected gateway cannot override an explicit ACL denial. The focused rollback restores a known safe baseline before another change attempt. The decision applies to the described inter-vlan routing and acl scope situation.
Incorrect Answers
B: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 inter-vlan routing and acl scope.
C:Remove or revert the overly broad policy route and restore normal forwarding until its selectors are corrected. This instead concerns policy-based routing exception. Policy routing can override ordinary destination-based decisions for explicitly matched traffic; overly broad matches cause path surprises. It would not safely roll back the relevant failed change. The immediate problem concerns inter-vlan routing and acl scope.
D:Restore the former tenant interface and VRF mappings if migration introduces unintended route exposure. This instead concerns routing vrfs and tenant isolation. VRFs partition forwarding and routing instances; a VLAN alone is not an isolated routing domain when the gateway is misplaced. It would not safely roll back the relevant failed change. The immediate problem concerns inter-vlan routing and acl scope.
Question 485
A newly created guest VLAN can unexpectedly reach management devices after its routed gateway policy was copied from staff. The review requires TWO complementary actions: one diagnostic check and one controlled configuration remedy. Select TWO actions that together meet those requirements.
- Review ICMPv6 neighbor solicitation and advertisement exchange, interface reachability and neighbor cache state.
- Review source and destination SVIs, VRFs, route lookup and the precise ACL rule matching sample traffic.
- Enforce tightly scoped policy-based routing for authorized traffic while retaining correct ordinary routing for other hosts.
- Establish the narrow approved inter-VLAN permit or deny rule on the appropriate routed interface.
Explanation
Correct Answers
B:Review source and destination SVIs, VRFs, route lookup and the precise ACL rule matching sample traffic. Inter-VLAN routing depends on both Layer 3 reachability and filtering; a connected gateway cannot override an explicit ACL denial. This is the required diagnosis or controlled remedy; the other keyed action supplies the complementary role. The decision applies to the described inter-vlan routing and acl scope situation.
D:Establish the narrow approved inter-VLAN permit or deny rule on the appropriate routed interface. Inter-VLAN routing depends on both Layer 3 reachability and filtering; a connected gateway cannot override an explicit ACL denial. This is the required diagnosis or controlled remedy; the other keyed action supplies the complementary role. The decision applies to the described inter-vlan routing and acl scope situation.
Incorrect Answers
A: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 is not one of the requested paired diagnosis and configuration actions. The immediate problem concerns inter-vlan routing and acl scope.
C:Enforce tightly scoped policy-based routing for authorized traffic while retaining correct ordinary routing for other hosts. This instead concerns policy-based routing exception. Policy routing can override ordinary destination-based decisions for explicitly matched traffic; overly broad matches cause path surprises. It is not one of the requested paired diagnosis and configuration actions. The immediate problem concerns inter-vlan routing and acl scope.
Question 486
A newly created guest VLAN can unexpectedly reach management devices after its routed gateway policy was copied from staff. After the root cause is confirmed, which narrowly scoped configuration action should be selected?
- Reinstate valid IPv6 neighbor discovery behavior and approved gateway addressing while retaining required ICMPv6 control traffic.
- Enforce tightly scoped policy-based routing for authorized traffic while retaining correct ordinary routing for other hosts.
- Establish the narrow approved inter-VLAN permit or deny rule on the appropriate routed interface.
- Map routed interfaces to the correct supported VRF and permit only approved inter-VRF access.
Explanation
Correct Answer
C:Establish the narrow approved inter-VLAN permit or deny rule on the appropriate routed interface. Inter-VLAN routing depends on both Layer 3 reachability and filtering; a connected gateway cannot override an explicit ACL denial. The proposed configuration targets the stated dependency without broadening unrelated access. The decision applies to the described inter-vlan routing and acl scope situation.
Incorrect Answers
A: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 inter-vlan routing and acl scope.
B:Enforce tightly scoped policy-based routing for authorized traffic while retaining correct ordinary routing for other hosts. This instead concerns policy-based routing exception. Policy routing can override ordinary destination-based decisions for explicitly matched traffic; overly broad matches cause path surprises. It would not implement the specifically required change. The immediate problem concerns inter-vlan routing and acl scope.
D:Map routed interfaces to the correct supported VRF and permit only approved inter-VRF access. This instead concerns routing vrfs and tenant isolation. VRFs partition forwarding and routing instances; a VLAN alone is not an isolated routing domain when the gateway is misplaced. It would not implement the specifically required change. The immediate problem concerns inter-vlan routing and acl scope.
Question 487
A newly created guest VLAN can unexpectedly reach management devices after its routed gateway policy was copied from staff. A deployment job reports success. Which observed result would actually validate the affected service?
- Confirm neighbor resolution and successful approved IPv6 connectivity after clearing only the affected stale entry.
- Verify permitted client traffic succeeds and negative tests to restricted subnets remain blocked.
- Verify selected test flows take the policy path and unmatched traffic follows the standard routing table.
- Confirm each tenant route table is isolated and only intentional cross-VRF traffic is reachable.
Explanation
Correct Answer
B:Verify permitted client traffic succeeds and negative tests to restricted subnets remain blocked. Inter-VLAN routing depends on both Layer 3 reachability and filtering; a connected gateway cannot override an explicit ACL denial. The result tests actual working behavior, not merely a saved configuration. The decision applies to the described inter-vlan routing and acl scope situation.
Incorrect Answers
A:Confirm 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 inter-vlan routing and acl scope.
C:Verify selected test flows take the policy path and unmatched traffic follows the standard routing table. This instead concerns policy-based routing exception. Policy routing can override ordinary destination-based decisions for explicitly matched traffic; overly broad matches cause path surprises. It would not establish that this function actually works. The immediate problem concerns inter-vlan routing and acl scope.
D:Confirm each tenant route table is isolated and only intentional cross-VRF traffic is reachable. This instead concerns routing vrfs and tenant isolation. VRFs partition forwarding and routing instances; a VLAN alone is not an isolated routing domain when the gateway is misplaced. It would not establish that this function actually works. The immediate problem concerns inter-vlan routing and acl scope.
Question 488
A newly created guest VLAN can unexpectedly reach management devices after its routed gateway policy was copied from staff. If the revised setting disrupts users, which controlled rollback would be most relevant?
- Restore the earlier least-privilege ACL and SVI policy if the adjustment expands access beyond scope.
- Return to the known-good IPv6 gateway and filtering configuration if the change breaks NDP.
- Eliminate or revert the overly broad policy route and restore normal forwarding until its selectors are corrected.
- Reinstate the former tenant interface and VRF mappings if migration introduces unintended route exposure.
Explanation
Correct Answer
A:Restore the earlier least-privilege ACL and SVI policy if the adjustment expands access beyond scope. Inter-VLAN routing depends on both Layer 3 reachability and filtering; a connected gateway cannot override an explicit ACL denial. The focused rollback restores a known safe baseline before another change attempt. The decision applies to the described inter-vlan routing and acl scope situation.
Incorrect Answers
B: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 inter-vlan routing and acl scope. For the incident in this item: A newly created guest VLAN can unexpectedly reach management devices after its routed gateway policy was copied from staff.
C:Eliminate or revert the overly broad policy route and restore normal forwarding until its selectors are corrected. This instead concerns policy-based routing exception. Policy routing can override ordinary destination-based decisions for explicitly matched traffic; overly broad matches cause path surprises. It would not safely roll back the relevant failed change. The immediate problem concerns inter-vlan routing and acl scope.
D:Reinstate the former tenant interface and VRF mappings if migration introduces unintended route exposure. This instead concerns routing vrfs and tenant isolation. VRFs partition forwarding and routing instances; a VLAN alone is not an isolated routing domain when the gateway is misplaced. It would not safely roll back the relevant failed change. The immediate problem concerns inter-vlan routing and acl scope.
Question 489
A dual-stack campus host has a valid IPv6 prefix but cannot resolve its local default router's link-layer address. Which investigation would best isolate the immediate network dependency?
- Inspect ICMPv6 neighbor solicitation and advertisement exchange, interface reachability and neighbor cache state.
- Inspect route policy match order, source and destination selectors, configured next hop and fallback behavior.
- Inspect interface-to-VRF membership, route tables and explicit route-leaking policies for the tenant.
- Inspect the installed default route, next-hop resolution and reachable egress interface for the affected VRF.
Explanation
Correct Answer
A:Inspect ICMPv6 neighbor solicitation and advertisement exchange, interface reachability and neighbor cache state. IPv6 Neighbor Discovery replaces ARP for address resolution and requires particular ICMPv6 messages; overfiltering them blocks connectivity. The evidence check isolates the relevant prerequisite before a disruptive change. The decision applies to the described ipv6 neighbor discovery and gateway reachability situation.
Incorrect Answers
B:Inspect route policy match order, source and destination selectors, configured next hop and fallback behavior. This instead concerns policy-based routing exception. Policy routing can override ordinary destination-based decisions for explicitly matched traffic; overly broad matches cause path surprises. It does not isolate the cause of the stated incident. The immediate problem concerns ipv6 neighbor discovery and gateway reachability.
C:Inspect interface-to-VRF membership, route tables and explicit route-leaking policies for the tenant. This instead concerns routing vrfs and tenant isolation. VRFs partition forwarding and routing instances; a VLAN alone is not an isolated routing domain when the gateway is misplaced. It does not isolate the cause of the stated incident. The immediate problem concerns ipv6 neighbor discovery and gateway reachability.
D:Inspect the installed default route, next-hop resolution and reachable egress interface for the affected VRF. This instead concerns static default route and next-hop reachability. A default route carries destinations with no more-specific match, but only a resolvable next hop and correct VRF can forward them. It does not isolate the cause of the stated incident. The immediate problem concerns ipv6 neighbor discovery and gateway reachability.
Question 490
A dual-stack campus host has a valid IPv6 prefix but cannot resolve its local default router's link-layer address. Which specific corrective design step best meets the stated campus requirement?
- Apply tightly scoped policy-based routing for authorized traffic while retaining correct ordinary routing for other hosts.
- Assign routed interfaces to the correct supported VRF and permit only approved inter-VRF access.
- Install a valid approved default route pointing to a reachable upstream gateway in the correct VRF.
- Restore valid IPv6 neighbor discovery behavior and approved gateway addressing while retaining required ICMPv6 control traffic.
Explanation
Correct Answer
D:Restore valid IPv6 neighbor discovery behavior and approved gateway addressing while retaining required ICMPv6 control traffic. IPv6 Neighbor Discovery replaces ARP for address resolution and requires particular ICMPv6 messages; overfiltering them blocks connectivity. The proposed configuration targets the stated dependency without broadening unrelated access. The decision applies to the described ipv6 neighbor discovery and gateway reachability situation.
Incorrect Answers
A:Apply tightly scoped policy-based routing for authorized traffic while retaining correct ordinary routing for other hosts. This instead concerns policy-based routing exception. Policy routing can override ordinary destination-based decisions for explicitly matched traffic; overly broad matches cause path surprises. It would not implement the specifically required change. The immediate problem concerns ipv6 neighbor discovery and gateway reachability.
B:Assign routed interfaces to the correct supported VRF and permit only approved inter-VRF access. This instead concerns routing vrfs and tenant isolation. VRFs partition forwarding and routing instances; a VLAN alone is not an isolated routing domain when the gateway is misplaced. It would not implement the specifically required change. The immediate problem concerns ipv6 neighbor discovery and gateway reachability.
C:Install a valid approved default route pointing to a reachable upstream gateway in the correct VRF. This instead concerns static default route and next-hop reachability. A default route carries destinations with no more-specific match, but only a resolvable next hop and correct VRF can forward them. It would not implement the specifically required change. The immediate problem concerns ipv6 neighbor discovery and gateway reachability.
