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

Fortinet Exam NSE8_812 Topic 4 Question 42 Discussion

Actual exam question for Fortinet's NSE8_812 exam
Question #: 42
Topic #: 4
[All NSE8_812 Questions]

Refer to the exhibit, which shows a Branch1 configuration and routing table.

In the SD-WAN implicit rule, you do not want the traffic load balance for the overlay interface when all members are available.

In this scenario, which configuration change will meet this requirement?

Show Suggested Answer Hide Answer
Suggested Answer: A

The exhibited playbook requires intervention, which means that the playbook has reached a point where it needs a human operator to take action. The next step should be to go to the Incident Response tasks dashboard and run the pending actions. This will allow you to see the pending actions that need to be taken and to take those actions.

The other options are not correct. Option B will only show you the notification icon, but it will not allow you to run the pending input action. Option C will run the Mark Drive by Download playbook action, but this is not the correct action to take in this case. Option D is not a valid option.

Here are some additional details about pending actions in FortiSOAR:

Pending actions are actions that need to be taken by a human operator.

Pending actions are displayed in the Incident Response tasks dashboard.

Pending actions can be run by clicking on the action in the dashboard.


Contribute your Thoughts:

Terrilyn
26 days ago
Option D is the way to go. Prioritizing the overlay members is the smart move here. It's like putting your thumb on the scale to keep the traffic from getting distributed.
upvoted 0 times
...
Deeanna
27 days ago
I'm going with D. Setting the priority to 10 is the cleanest way to meet the requirement without messing with other settings.
upvoted 0 times
...
Alpha
29 days ago
Hmm, I'm not sure. Changing the load-balance-mode to source-ip-based in option A sounds like it could work, but it's not exactly what the question is asking for.
upvoted 0 times
Augustine
5 days ago
User2: Maybe configuring the cost in each overlay member to 10 would meet the requirement.
upvoted 0 times
...
Stephanie
11 days ago
User1: I think option A could work, but it's not exactly what they're looking for.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Marshall
1 months ago
Option C looks good too. Setting the cost in each overlay member to 10 should also prevent load-balancing when all members are up.
upvoted 0 times
...
Romana
1 months ago
But wouldn't changing the load-balance-mode to source-ip-based ensure traffic load balance when all members are available?
upvoted 0 times
...
Darrin
1 months ago
I think option D is the correct choice. Configuring the priority in each overlay member to 10 will ensure that the traffic doesn't get load-balanced when all members are available.
upvoted 0 times
Yoko
5 days ago
Why do you think option A is the correct choice?
upvoted 0 times
...
Mendy
18 days ago
Option D is not correct. You should choose option A instead.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Carissa
1 months ago
I disagree, I believe the correct answer is C) Configure the cost in each overlay member to 10.
upvoted 0 times
...
Romana
1 months ago
I think the answer is A) Change the load-balance-mode to source-ip-based.
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
a