Deal of The Day! Hurry Up, Grab the Special Discount - Save 25% - Ends In 00:00:00 Coupon code: SAVE25
Welcome to Pass4Success

- Free Preparation Discussions

Cisco Exam 300-710 Topic 7 Question 107 Discussion

Actual exam question for Cisco's 300-710 exam
Question #: 107
Topic #: 7
[All 300-710 Questions]

Refer to the exhibit.

A company is deploying a pair of Cisco Secure Firewall Threat defence devices named FTD1 and FTD2. FTD1 and FTD2 have been configured as an active/standby pair with a failover link but without a stateful link. What must be implemented next to ensure that users on the internal network still communicate with outside devices if FTD1 fails?

Show Suggested Answer Hide Answer
Suggested Answer: C

In a failover configuration with Cisco Secure Firewall Threat Defense (FTD) devices, ensuring that users on the internal network can continue to communicate with outside devices if the primary device (FTD1) fails requires the implementation of a stateful failover link. The stateful failover link allows the secondary device (FTD2) to maintain session information and state data, ensuring seamless failover and minimizing disruptions.

Steps to implement a stateful failover link:

Physically connect a stateful failover link between FTD1 and FTD2.

Configure the stateful failover link in the FMC.

Ensure that both devices are properly synchronized and that stateful failover is enabled.

Deploy the changes to both FTD devices.

By configuring a stateful link, the secondary FTD can take over active sessions without requiring users to re-establish their connections, thus ensuring continuous communication.


Contribute your Thoughts:

Hortencia
10 days ago
Exactly, Naomi! Firewalls and spanning-tree don't exactly go hand-in-hand. C is the only sensible choice.
upvoted 0 times
...
Naomi
14 days ago
Haha, imagine if they chose D and tried to configure spanning-tree on firewalls. That would be a disaster waiting to happen!
upvoted 0 times
...
Owen
19 days ago
I don't think disabling port security is the best solution, we should go with configuring a stateful link for better failover.
upvoted 0 times
...
Ezekiel
20 days ago
Nah, A is just a bad idea. That would leave your network wide open. C is the clear winner here.
upvoted 0 times
Meaghan
2 days ago
I agree, A is definitely not the right choice. C seems like the best option to ensure communication if FTD1 fails.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Wilda
23 days ago
But what about disabling port security on the switch interfaces connected to FTD1 and FTD2? Could that also help?
upvoted 0 times
...
Stephanie
26 days ago
I agree with Owen, without a stateful link, communication may be disrupted if FTD1 fails.
upvoted 0 times
...
Sheridan
1 months ago
Hmm, I'm not sure about that. Wouldn't disabling port security on the switch interfaces (A) be a simpler solution?
upvoted 0 times
...
Talia
1 months ago
I agree, C is the way to go. Without a stateful link, the standby firewall won't have the necessary state information to take over seamlessly.
upvoted 0 times
...
Laine
1 months ago
Definitely C. A stateful link is crucial for maintaining communication when the active firewall fails.
upvoted 0 times
Adelaide
2 days ago
Disabling port security on the switch interfaces connected to FTD1 and FTD2 might create security vulnerabilities.
upvoted 0 times
...
Socorro
8 days ago
I think setting maximum secured addresses to two on the switch interfaces could also help in this situation.
upvoted 0 times
...
Jesusita
9 days ago
I agree, a stateful link is necessary for maintaining communication during a failover.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Owen
1 months ago
I think we need to connect and configure a stateful link for FTD1 and FTD2.
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