Independence Day Deal! Unlock 25% OFF Today – Limited-Time Offer - Ends In 00:00:00 Coupon code: SAVE25
Welcome to Pass4Success

- Free Preparation Discussions

Cisco Exam 300-420 Topic 15 Question 74 Discussion

Actual exam question for Cisco's 300-420 exam
Question #: 74
Topic #: 15
[All 300-420 Questions]

Refer to the exhibit.

Refer to the exhibit. An engineer is designing an OSPF solution for a customer. The design must take into consideration:

Application load balancers D. E. and F are in different geographical locations and are OSPF-enabled.

Hosts A, B. and C connect to an application through the load balancers using IP address 10.1.1.1/32.

In the event of a failure of one of the load balancers, hosts must still have access to the application.

Which solution must the engineer choose?

Show Suggested Answer Hide Answer
Suggested Answer: C

Contribute your Thoughts:

Janey
1 months ago
Wait, are we sure the load balancers are not actually just really big hamsters running on wheels? That would explain a lot about the design choices.
upvoted 0 times
Latosha
8 days ago
Yeah, option C seems like the best choice to maintain access to the application even if one of the load balancers fails.
upvoted 0 times
...
Linwood
18 days ago
I think the engineer should choose option C, at least one load balancer to be in area 0 to ensure access to the application in case of failure.
upvoted 0 times
...
Fletcher
23 days ago
That would be a funny sight to see, but I don't think load balancers are actually hamsters.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Elroy
2 months ago
Option A sounds good, but I'm not sure if it's the best solution. Having all the load balancers co-located in area 0 could create a single point of failure.
upvoted 0 times
...
Ashlyn
2 months ago
I'm leaning towards option D. Configuring all the load balancers in the same area might simplify the design and make it easier to manage.
upvoted 0 times
Lenora
20 days ago
Sheridan: Exactly, it's important to consider ease of management when designing network solutions.
upvoted 0 times
...
Sheridan
21 days ago
User 2: Agreed, it would definitely simplify the design and management of the OSPF solution.
upvoted 0 times
...
Inocencia
21 days ago
User 3: Yeah, having them in the same area seems like the best choice for this scenario.
upvoted 0 times
...
Theodora
28 days ago
User 2: Agreed, it would definitely simplify the design and management.
upvoted 0 times
...
Mignon
1 months ago
User 1: I think option D makes sense. Having all load balancers in the same area could be more efficient.
upvoted 0 times
...
Cherilyn
1 months ago
User 1: I think option D makes sense. Having all load balancers in the same area could make things easier.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Yuette
2 months ago
Option B seems like a better choice. Separating the load balancers into different areas will provide better redundancy and resilience in case of a failure.
upvoted 0 times
...
Ceola
2 months ago
I think option C is the way to go. Having at least one load balancer in area 0 ensures that hosts can still access the application even if one of the load balancers fails.
upvoted 0 times
Lezlie
23 days ago
True, but having one in area 0 ensures that hosts can still reach the application in case of a failure.
upvoted 0 times
...
Keneth
1 months ago
That's a good point, having all load balancers in the same area could simplify the configuration.
upvoted 0 times
...
Garry
1 months ago
But wouldn't it be better to have all load balancers in the same area for consistency?
upvoted 0 times
...
Ricarda
1 months ago
I agree, having at least one load balancer in area 0 is crucial for redundancy.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Herman
3 months ago
But wouldn't it be better to have all load balancers co-located in area 0 for better control?
upvoted 0 times
...
Luisa
3 months ago
I agree, having at least one load balancer in area 0 ensures redundancy.
upvoted 0 times
...
Laticia
3 months ago
I think the engineer should choose option C.
upvoted 0 times
...

Save Cancel
az-700  pass4success  az-104  200-301  200-201  cissp  350-401  350-201  350-501  350-601  350-801  350-901  az-720  az-305  pl-300  

Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /pass.php:70) in /pass.php on line 77