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

The question involves a customer deploying PoE-powered IoT security devices (e.g., door locks) that must remain active during an AOS-CX switch software upgrade. The task is to identify a valid solution.

Analysis of Options:

Option A:Incorrect. A VSX pair provides redundancy but does not guarantee PoE continuity during a single switch’s upgrade.

Option B:Incorrect. quick-poe reduces PoE startup time but does not ensure power during upgrades.

Option C:Correct. power-over-ethernet always-on ensures PoE remains active during software upgrades, meeting the requirement.

Option D:Incorrect. PoE priority adjusts power allocation but does not guarantee continuity during upgrades.

Why Option C is Correct:The power-over-ethernet always-on feature on AOS-CX switches ensures that PoE power delivery continues uninterrupted during software upgrades or reboots, critical for devices like IoT security door locks that require constant power. This feature prevents power cycling on PoE ports, maintaining device operation. For example, enabling it on relevant ports (e.g., interface 1/1/1 power-over-ethernet always-on) ensures compliance with the customer’s requirement, as per HPE Aruba Networking’s PoE high-availability guidelines.

Relevance to Certification Objectives:

Connectivity (9%):Configuring PoE for critical device deployment.

Network Resiliency and Virtualization (8%):Ensuring device uptime during maintenance.

Troubleshooting (10%):Resolving PoE continuity issues.

The correct order is:

identify

analyze

hypothesize

validate

implement

verify

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The user's device fails 802.1X EAP-TLS authentication, but the client-side certificate is known to be valid. We need two likely causes.

EAP-TLS Process:Involves mutual certificate validation and TLS handshake between client and RADIUS server (proxied by NAD).

Causes (Client Cert OK):

Server Certificate Issues: Client doesn't trust server cert (Untrusted CA, name mismatch, expired).

EAP Type Mismatch:Client supplicant configured for different EAP type than RADIUS server policy.

RADIUS Server Issues:Policy misconfiguration, user not found, internal errors.

NAD <-> RADIUS Communication Failure:Switch cannot reach RADIUS server (IP connectivity, firewall, routing), incorrect shared secret.

Client Supplicant Misconfiguration:Incorrect identity, settings other than the certificate itself.

Network packet loss.

Analysis of Options (Select Two):

A: Wrong gateway affects L3 post-authentication.

B: ACL blocking EAPoL/RADIUS is possible but less common than config errors.

C:EAP-type mismatch:A very common configuration error leading to failure.

D: Wrong MAC address is irrelevant for EAP-TLS failure itself.

E: NAD not able to communicate with DNS servers: DNS isn't directly involved in EAP-TLS. However, if interpreted more broadly asNAD not able to communicate with the RADIUS server(due to IP routing, firewall, or incorrect server address), this is a very common cause of failure.

Conclusion:An EAP-type mismatch (C) is a prime suspect when basic certificate validity is assumed. Failure of the Network Access Device (NAD - the switch) to communicate with the RADIUS server (E, interpreted broadly as RADIUS reachability) is another major category of failure causes.

The question involves troubleshooting an issue where the command output is initially unknown, but subsequent executions show diagnostic information for an interface (1/1/X). The task is to identify appropriate diagnostic commands to troubleshoot the issue.

Analysis of Options:

Option A (diag interface transceiver al):Incorrect syntax; “al” is not a valid parameter.

Option B (diag interface 1/VX transceiver all):Incorrect syntax; “1/VX” is not a valid interface format.

Option C (diag cable-diagnostic 1/1/X):Correct. This command runs a cable diagnostic test (TDR) on interface 1/1/X to check for cable faults, such as opens or shorts.

Option D (diag cable 1/1/X):Incorrect; “diag cable” is not a valid AOS-CX command.

Option E (diag 1/1/X transceiver all):Correct. This command displays detailed transceiver information, including status, errors, and signal quality, useful for diagnosing interface issues.

Why C and E are Correct:The diag cable-diagnostic 1/1/X command is used to perform TDR tests to identify cable faults, which could cause connectivity issues. The diag 1/1/X transceiver all command provides detailed transceiver diagnostics, such as power levels, errors, or hardware issues, helping pinpoint problems with the interface or connected device. These commands align with AOS-CX troubleshooting workflows for physical layer issues.

Relevance to Certification Objectives:

Troubleshooting (10%):Involves using diagnostic commands to troubleshoot campus network issues.

Connectivity (9%):Includes identifying problem areas in device deployment, such as cabling or transceiver issues.

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

Analysis of Options:

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

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

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

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

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

Relevance to Certification Objectives:

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

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

This question asks for the sequence of events when a user device connects to a network utilizing Dynamic Segmentation, which typically involves authentication via ClearPass and role-based policy assignment.

Authentication:When a device connects (wired or wireless), the first step in gaining secure access is authentication. The switch or AP (authenticator) facilitates this process, usually communicating via RADIUS with ClearPass Policy Manager (RADIUS server). The device provides credentials or uses certificates (e.g., 802.1X, MAC Auth).

Role Assignment:Upon successful authentication, ClearPass evaluates policies based on the device/user context (identity, posture, time of day, etc.) and sends back RADIUS attributes to the authenticator. A crucial attribute is the assigned User Role. This role encapsulates the access privileges and network configuration for the device.

Network Placement/Segmentation:The authenticator (switch/AP) uses the assigned role information received from ClearPass to place the device into the appropriate network segment. This might involve assigning a specific VLAN ID to the port/client or, in User-Based Tunneling (UBT) scenarios, establishing a tunnel to an Aruba Gateway associated with that role. The step "placed on a VLAN based on its role" describes one common method of segmentation based on the assigned role.

Access Granted:Once the device is authenticated, assigned a role, and placed in the correct network segment (VLAN or tunnel), access is granted according to the firewall rules, QoS settings, and other policies defined within that assigned role. Traffic can now flow subject to these enforced policies.

The administrator observes IP SLA jitter monitoring results spiking to 100% when monitoring UCC sessions. This indicates either extremely severe network jitter or, more likely, a problem with the IP SLA operation or measurement itself on the AOS-CX switch.  

IP SLA & Jitter:IP SLA measures jitter by analyzing the inter-packet delay variation of probe packets. Accurate measurements depend on the switch generating and processing these probes consistently.

Factors Affecting IP SLA Accuracy:

Switch Resource Contention:If the switch's CPU or memory is heavily utilized, the operating system might not schedule the IP SLA process promptly. This can lead to inconsistent generation or processing of probe packets, causing highly inaccurate measurements, including extreme jitter values like 100%.

Control Plane Policing (CoPP):IP SLA packets are control plane traffic. If CoPP policies are too restrictive, they might drop or delay IP SLA probes, skewing results.

Network Path Issues:Actual severe jitter on the network path would also cause high readings, but 100% spikes often suggest measurement error first.

Troubleshooting Steps:When encountering unexpectedly high or erratic IP SLA results, the first step is often to rule out issues with the monitoring device itself.

Analysis of Options:

A. memory and processor usage: Checking the switch's resource utilization is crucial. High CPU/memory load can directly impact the timing accuracy of IP SLA operations.

B. source IP and source port combination: Unlikely to cause 100% jitter spikes unless fundamentally misconfigured causing probe failure.

C. number of NAE agents: NAE agents consume resources, but checking overall CPU/memory (A) is more direct.

D. CoPP settings: A valid concern, as CoPP affects control plane traffic. However, checking overall system load (A) is typically a primary check before delving into specific policies like CoPP.

Conclusion:High memory and processor usage (Option A) on the switch running the IP SLA operation is a common cause for inaccurate timing and resulting erroneous jitter measurements. This should be checked first to ensure the monitoring platform itself is functioning correctly.

The question asks which EAP (Extensible Authentication Protocol) methods are supported when configuring the 802.1Xsupplicantfeature on an AOS-CX switch (i.e., the switch acting as the client authenticating to another device).

AOS-CX 802.1X Supplicant:Allows the switch itself to authenticate using 802.1X.

Supported EAP Methods:Switch implementations typically support a subset of common EAP methods for the supplicant role. Secure methods are preferred. AOS-CX documentation for the dot1x supplicant eap-method command typically lists supported types. Common secure methods found in documentation include EAP-TLS and EAP-PEAP (usually with MSCHAPv2). EAP-MD5 is often supported but insecure.

Analysis of Options (Select Two):

A. EAP-TLS: A secure, certificate-based method commonly supported by enterprise supplicants. Likely supported.

B. EAP-TTLS: Another secure tunneled method, but PEAP is sometimes more common in switch supplicants. Support needs verification in specific AOS-CX docs.

C. EAP-MD5: Simple challenge-response, but insecure. Often supported for legacy reasons.

D. EAP-PEAP: Secure tunneled method using server-side certificate and typically username/password (MSCHAPv2) inside. Commonly supported.

E. EAP-TEAP: A newer tunneled method, less likely to be supported than PEAP/TLS in switch supplicants.

Conclusion:Based on typical enterprise requirements and likely AOS-CX capabilities documented for the supplicant feature, the secure methods EAP-TLS(A) and EAP-PEAP (D) are the most probable supported options among the choices.

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

Config Sync Status : sw_image_version_mismatch_error  

NAE : sw_image_version_mismatch_error  

HTTPS Server : sw_image_version_mismatch_error  

Primary Software Version: GL.10.09.0010  

Secondary Software Version: GL.10.11.1021  

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

Analysis of Options:

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

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

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

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