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

- Free Preparation Discussions

Fortinet Exam NSE8_812 Topic 1 Question 22 Discussion

Actual exam question for Fortinet's NSE8_812 exam

Question #: 22
Topic #: 1

[All NSE8_812 Questions]

An HA topology is using the following configuration:

Based on this configuration, how long will it take for a failover to be detected by the secondary cluster member?

A600ms

B200ms

C300ms

D100ms

Show Suggested Answer

Suggested Answer: B, D, E

Bmust be set to enable mode-cfg, which is required for injecting IKE routes on the ADVPN shortcut tunnels.

Dmust be set to enable add-route, which is the command that actually injects the IKE routes.

Emust be set to enable mode-cfg-allow-client-selector, which allows custom phase 2 selectors to be configured.

The other options are incorrect. Option A is incorrect because net-device disable is not required for injecting IKE routes on the ADVPN shortcut tunnels. Option C is incorrect because IKE version 1 is not supported for ADVPN.

References:

Phase 2 selectors and ADVPN shortcut tunnels | FortiGate / FortiOS 7.2.0

Configuring SD-WAN/ADVPN with FortiGate | FortiGate / FortiOS 7.2.0

by Laurene at May 13, 2024, 12:55 PM

Limited Time Offer

25%

Off

Get Premium NSE8_812 Questions as Interactive Web-Based Practice Test or PDF

Contribute your Thoughts:

Submit Cancel

Sabra

2 months ago

A) 600ms? Whoa, that's like a whole lifetime in the tech world! By the time the failover happens, the primary cluster member will have already been on vacation for a week.

upvoted 0 times

Junita

9 days ago

D) 100ms

upvoted 0 times

...

Keena

14 days ago

A) 600ms? That's way too long for a failover!

upvoted 0 times

...

Verlene

15 days ago

C) 300ms

upvoted 0 times

...

Filiberto

24 days ago

B) 200ms

upvoted 0 times

...

...

Evangelina

2 months ago

I'm going with B) 200ms. It's a happy medium between being too fast and too slow. Gotta keep that failover snappy, you know?

upvoted 0 times

Stanford

6 hours ago

I'm leaning towards D) 100ms for quick failover detection.

upvoted 0 times

...

Stephaine

3 days ago

I agree, C) 300ms seems like a reasonable time for failover detection.

upvoted 0 times

...

Cassie

1 months ago

I think A) 600ms is too slow for failover detection.

upvoted 0 times

...

...

Glory

2 months ago

D) 100ms? That's way too fast. These clusters need some time to communicate and make sure there's a real failure before switching over.

upvoted 0 times

Carmelina

28 days ago

B) 200ms

upvoted 0 times

...

Paz

1 months ago

A) 600ms

upvoted 0 times

...

...

Carey

2 months ago

Hmm, I think the answer is C) 300ms. That delay seems like a reasonable time for the secondary cluster member to detect a failover.

upvoted 0 times

Ria

20 days ago

D) 100ms seems too short for failover detection, I would go with a longer delay.

upvoted 0 times

...

Kimbery

1 months ago

I'm leaning towards B) 200ms, a quicker response time could be more efficient.

upvoted 0 times

...

Lindy

2 months ago

I think it might be A) 600ms, a longer delay could be safer for failover detection.

upvoted 0 times

...

Golda

2 months ago

I agree, C) 300ms sounds like a reasonable time for failover detection.

upvoted 0 times

...

...

Chaya

2 months ago

I'm confident in my answer because the configuration shows a longer detection time.

upvoted 0 times

...

Kendra

2 months ago

I disagree, I believe it's B) 200ms.

upvoted 0 times

...

Chaya

3 months ago

I think the answer is A) 600ms.

upvoted 0 times

...

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