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

Establish redundant links between the aggregation and core layers:When using Layer 3 routing between network layers (like Aggregation and Core),ECMP (Equal Cost Multi-Path)allows the routing protocol (e.g., OSPF, BGP) to utilize multiple links simultaneously if they have the same routing cost. This provides both redundancy (if one link fails, traffic uses the others) and load sharing across the links.

The question involves an EAP timeout in HPE Aruba Networking ClearPass Access Tracker during an 802.1X authentication attempt, with the task of identifying a possible cause.

Analysis of Options:

Option A:Incorrect. A client certificate trust issue would cause a different error, not an EAP timeout.

Option B:Incorrect. An expired client certificate would result in an authentication failure, not a timeout.

Option C:Incorrect. If the client sees an expired RADIUS server certificate, it would reject it, but this typically causes a trust error, not a timeout.

Option D:Correct. If the client does not trust the RADIUS server’s certificate (e.g., missing CA certificate or untrusted issuer), it may fail to proceed with the EAP handshake, leading to an EAP timeout.

Why Option D is Correct:In 802.1X authentication with EAP (e.g., EAP-TLS or EAP-PEAP), the client must trust the RADIUS server’s certificate to establish a secure TLS tunnel. If the client’s trust store lacks the Certificate Authority (CA) certificate or the server’s certificate is untrusted (e.g., self-signed without proper installation), the clientaborts the EAP handshake, resulting in an EAP timeout logged in ClearPass. This is a common issue in 802.1X deployments and can be resolved by ensuring the client has the correct CA certificate or by using a trusted server certificate, as per HPE Aruba Networking’s security guidelines.

Relevance to Certification Objectives:

Authentication/Authorization (9%):Troubleshooting 802.1X and ClearPass authentication issues.

Security (10%):Diagnosing wired 802.1X with EAP-TLS failures.

Troubleshooting (10%):Resolving authentication timeouts in campus networks.

 Analyze Topology and Existing Configuration:

RouterA (AS 64500) peers with RouterB (AS 64512) using eBGP.

Peering is configured between loopback interfaces (RouterA Lo0 10.3.0.3 to RouterB Lo0 10.255.0.12).

Two parallel physical links connect the routers (10.255.102.0/30 and 10.255.102.4/30).

RouterA has two static routes pointing to RouterB's loopback (10.255.0.12/32), one via each physical link's next hop (10.255.102.1 and 10.255.102.5). This provides reachability to the BGP peer address over both paths.

RouterA's BGP config activates the neighbor 10.255.0.12 for IPv4 unicast but is missing key commands for stable loopback peering and load balancing.

 Goal:Permit load balancing for traffic exchanged via BGP between RouterA and RouterB. This requires BGP ECMP (Equal Cost Multi-Path).

 Requirements for eBGP ECMP over Loopbacks:

Stable Peering:Peering must use loopback addresses. This requires:

update-source loopback : To source BGP TCP packets from the loopback IP.

ebgp-multihop : Because loopbacks are not directly connected (TTL > 1 needed).

ECMP Enabled:BGP must be configured to allow multiple paths in the routing table. This requires:

maximum-paths (or maximum-paths ebgp ): To allow more than the default 1 path.

Equal Paths:BGP must see multiple paths to thesameprefix learnedfrom RouterBthat are considered equal based on BGP path selection attributes (Weight, Local_Pref, AS_Path, Origin, MED, etc.). Since routes are learned from the same neighbor IP (RouterB's loopback), these attributes will likely be identical for routes learned via this peering. RouterA already has equal static routestothe BGP next hop (10.255.0.12).

The BGP state on a VSX pair is stuck (not 'Established') after a recent firewall change at the WAN/Internet edge, where the BGP peering likely occurs.

BGP and Firewalls:BGP establishes sessions usingTCP port 179. Firewalls located between BGP peers must explicitly permit TCP port 179 traffic bidirectionally for the peering to establish and maintain. Firewall changes are a frequent cause of broken BGP sessions.

Troubleshooting Steps After Firewall Change:The most logical first step is to verify that the firewall change did not inadvertently block TCP port 179 between the configured BGP neighbor IP addresses.

Analysis of Options:

A: Restarting routing service is disruptive and not the first step.

B: Confirming that appropriate TCP ports (specifically 179) are still allowed through the firewall directly addresses the most probable cause related to the firewall change event.

C: Restarting NAT service is likely irrelevant unless NAT is incorrectly configured for BGP peers.

D: Confirming the peer AS is a basic configuration check but less likely related to thefirewall changeevent than port blocking.

Conclusion:Given the problem occurred immediately following a firewall change, verifying that the firewall still permits TCP port 179 between the BGP peers is the most direct and likely troubleshooting step.

The question asks for the reason for using WPA3-Enterprise (CCM-128) when deploying Wi-Fi 6 networks.

WPA3-Enterprise Modes:

CCM-128:Uses AES-CCMP-128 (same cipher as WPA2). Its main purpose is to provide a transition path from WPA2 to WPA3. It allows both WPA3-capable and WPA2-only clients to connect to the same SSID. It enforces Protected Management Frames (PMF, 802.11w) when possible(required for WPA3, optional for WPA2). It's often called "Transition Mode" or "Compatibility Mode".

GCMP-256:Uses stronger AES-GCMP-256. It operates in "WPA3-Only Mode" and doesnotallow WPA2 clients.

Wi-Fi 6 (802.11ax) & WPA3:Wi-Fi 6 certification requires support for WPA3.

Analysis of Options:

A: Incorrectly calls CCM-128 "192-bit mode" and "WPA3 only".

B: Correctly calls CCM-128 "Transition Mode" and states it allows WPA2 clients.

C: Correctly calls CCM-128 "Compatibility Mode" and states it allows WPA2 clients. "Compatibility Mode" and "Transition Mode" are used interchangeably for this WPA3 mode.

D: Incorrectly calls CCM-128 "Only Mode" and states no WPA2 support.  

Conclusion:Both Option B and Option C accurately describe WPA3-Enterprise (CCM-128). It is designed as a transition/compatibility mode to allow environments to adopt WPA3 features (like mandatory PMF for capable clients) while still supporting legacy WPA2 clients on the same network during the migration period. Selecting either B or C would be functionally correct based on common terminology.

The scenario describes two separate VSX clusters interconnected via MC-LAG, where both clusters are configured to use theexact samevirtual IP address and virtual MAC address for their respective Active Gateway SVIs.

Active Gateway Scope & Conflict:Active Gateway provides a highly available default gatewaywithina single VSX cluster (L2 domain). The vIP/vMAC combination should be unique within its L2 broadcast domain.

Interconnecting Clusters with Same vIP/vMAC:When two VSX clusters using the identical Active Gateway vIP/vMAC are interconnected at Layer 2 (even via MC-LAG), this creates a situation where the same active L2 (vMAC) and L3 (vIP) address exists in multiple places within the extended broadcast domain.

Consequences:This leads to MAC address conflicts and L3 ambiguity. ARP resolution becomes unreliable, potentially causing ARP tables to flap on connected devices. Traffic forwarding becomes unpredictable, as packets destined for the vIP/vMAC might be delivered to the "wrong" cluster. This unstable and unpredictable state is sometimes referred to as an asymmetric or "async" setup.

Analysis of Options:

A: ISL traffic might change, but it's a symptom, not the root problem.

B: Multiple ARP replies would occur, contributing to the confusion.

C: The configuration results in an "async setup," accurately describing the unstable state caused by duplicate active L2/L3 addresses across the interconnected L2 domain.

D: Load-balancing happens within a cluster; this setup causes conflict, not predictable load balancing across clusters.

Conclusion:Reusing the same Active Gateway vIP and vMAC across interconnected VSX clusters is not a valid design and leads to an unstable, asymmetric ("async") environment due to address duplication within the extended L2 domain. Option C best describes this problematic outcome.

The question asks for the effects of adding the command neighbor 10.2.0.3 send-community both to the BGP configuration under the IPv4 address family context for neighbor R2 (10.2.0.3) on router R1.

send-community both:This command instructs R1 to send both standard (RFC 1997) and extended (RFC 4360) BGP community attributes to neighbor R2. By default, communities are not sent.

BGP Capability Negotiation:Adding or changing features like community advertisement modifies the BGP capabilities exchanged between neighbors during session establishment. Any change to these capabilities requires the BGP session to be reset (flap) so that the peers can renegotiate using the new capabilities.

Analysis of Options (Select Two):

A: Correct (partially). It enables R1 tosendstandard and extended communities. The ability toreceivedepends on the peer and local config. The capability isnegotiatedupon session reset.

B: Incorrect. Changing capabilities requires the session to flap; it's not without consequence.

C: Incorrect. It primarily enablesoutboundsending from R1. Inbound acceptance is implicit if the neighbor is activated.

D: Correct. Modifying BGP neighbor capabilities, such as enabling send-community, necessitates a BGP session reset (flap) for the change to take effect.

E: Incorrect terminology ("import/export", "type-1/type-2 communities").

Conclusion:The command enables R1 to send communities (A describes the purpose/capability), and adding this command to an existing session will cause the session to flap for renegotiation (D describes the immediate consequence).

The question involves a customer experiencing performance degradation due to periodic overutilization of ToR-1 uplinks to legacy Core-1 and Core-2 switches. The proposed solution is to migrate to CX 6400 series switches, and the task is to identify which aspects of the CX 6400 platform address the issue while adhering to HPE Aruba Networking best practices.

Analysis of Options:

Option A:Incorrect. The CX 6400 does not support “multi-region design” as a feature for active forwarding pathways.

Option B:Correct. Virtual Switching Framework (VSF) on the CX 6400 allows multiple active forwarding pathways by creating a single logical switch from multiple physical switches, eliminating the need for STP in the core and reducing uplink congestion.

Option C:Incorrect. Backplane stacking does not directly enable ESXi hosts to load balance using active LACP; this is unrelated to uplink utilization.

Option D:Correct. Multi-Chassis Link Aggregation (MC-LAG) allows Core-1 and Core-2 to form a single logical 802.3ad (LACP) device, enabling active-active uplinks from ToR-1 and load balancing traffic to prevent overutilization.

Why B and D are Correct:The performance degradation is caused by uplink overutilization, likely due to STP blocking redundant paths or inefficient load balancing. The CX 6400’s VSF capability combines multiple switches into a single logical device, allowing all uplinks from ToR-1 to be active without relying on STP, which often blocks redundant paths. MC-LAG further enhances this by presenting Core-1 and Core-2 as a single LACP system, enabling ToR-1 to use all uplinks actively via LACP load balancing. These features align with HPE Aruba Networking best practices for high-availability and performance in campus core deployments.

Relevance to Certification Objectives:

Network Resiliency and Virtualization (8%):Designing and troubleshooting VSF and MC-LAG for resiliency and redundancy.

Performance Optimization (6%):Analyzing and remediating uplink utilization issues.

Connectivity (9%):Applying advanced networking architectures like VSF and MC-LAG.

The question involves Acme Corp experiencing performance degradation due to overutilized uplinks from ToR-1 to Core-1 and Core-2, with a diagram (not provided) indicating a potential MSTP (Multiple Spanning Tree Protocol) issue. The task is to identify valid reasons for uplink overutilization.

Analysis of Options:

Option A:Incorrect. Incorrect root bridge configuration (e.g., Core-2 as root) may cause suboptimal paths but is not directly linked to uplink overutilization without further context.

Option B:Correct. Inconsistent VLAN-to-instance mappings across switches can cause MSTP to block unexpected ports, funneling traffic through fewer uplinks and causing overutilization.

Option C:Incorrect. Firmware mismatches may cause compatibility issues but are unlikely to directly cause uplink overutilization.

Option D:Correct. Using the default MSTP region configuration (e.g., default region name and revision) across switches can lead to all switches forming a single MSTP region, potentially causing suboptimal topology and uplink overuse.

Option E:Incorrect. Running MSTP with admin-network port-type on uplinks and downlinks is not a standard cause of overutilization; it’s a specific port role.

Why B and D are Correct:MSTP relies on consistent region configurations (region name, revision number, VLAN-to-instance mappings) to create efficient topologies. If VLAN-to-instance mappings differ (Option B), switches treat each other as separate regions, leading to blocked ports and traffic concentration on fewer uplinks, causing overutilization. Similarly, using the default MSTP region configuration (Option D) without customizing the region name or revision can result in all switches forming a single region with suboptimal spanning tree instances, potentially overloading specific uplinks. Both issues disrupt MSTP’s ability to balance traffic across redundant paths, aligning with HPE Aruba Networking’s MSTP troubleshooting scenarios.

Relevance to Certification Objectives:

Network Resiliency and Virtualization (8%):Troubleshooting MSTP for redundancy and fault tolerance.

Switching (19%):Diagnosing Layer 2 issues, including MSTP misconfigurations.

Performance Optimization (6%):Remediating uplink utilization issues.

The customer requires VLAN 151 to be configured as an isolated Private VLAN. A partial configuration was added, but the desired outcome wasn't achieved. We need to determine which configuration snippet should be addedbeforethe (unspecified) partial configuration to correctly set up the Private VLAN structure.

Private VLAN Configuration Fundamentals:

APrimary VLANmust be defined. This VLAN carries traffic between promiscuous ports and ports in associated secondary VLANs.

Secondary VLANs(either isolated or community) are associated with the primary VLAN.

Ports are then mapped to either the primary VLAN (promiscuous ports, typically router/firewall connections) or a secondary VLAN (host ports). Isolated ports within thesameisolated VLAN cannot communicate with each other.

Analyzing the Options (Assuming VLAN 15 is the intended Primary):

A)

vlan 15

private-vlan primary

vsx-sync

This correctly defines VLAN 15 as the Primary Private VLAN. The vsx-sync command ensures this configuration is synchronized across a VSX pair (relevant if applicable). This is the necessary prerequisite before defining VLAN 151 as an isolated secondary VLAN and associating it with VLAN 15.

B)isolated-vlan primary is incorrect syntax. The command is private-vlan primary.

C)primary-vlan isolated 151 is incorrect syntax for defining either the primary or secondary VLAN type/association within the primary VLAN context.

D)private-vlan isolated 151 within the vlan 15 context is incorrect syntax. The private-vlan isolated command belongs under the configuration of the secondary VLAN (VLAN 151 in this case).

Conclusion:Before configuring VLAN 151 as private-vlan isolated and associating it, the primary VLAN must be defined. Option A correctly shows the command (private-vlan primary) under the intended primary VLAN's configuration (vlan 15) to establish it as the primary VLAN.