Cisco 300-710 Exam - Topic 7 Question 107 Discussion

Actual exam question for Cisco's 300-710 exam

Question #: 107
Topic #: 7

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?

ADisable port security on the switch interfaces connected to FTD1 and FTD2.

BSet maximum secured addresses to two on the switch interfaces on FTD1 and FTD2.

CConnect and configure a stateful link and thon deploy the changes.

DConfigure the spanning-tree PortFasI feature on SW1 and FTD2

Show Suggested 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.

by Edwin at Mar 21, 2025, 11:42 PM

Limited Time Offer

25%

Off

Get Premium 300-710 Questions as Interactive Web-Based Practice Test or PDF

Contribute your Thoughts:

Submit Cancel

Nguyet

5 months ago

I think disabling port security might cause more issues.

upvoted 0 times

...

Portia

5 months ago

Totally agree, option C is the way to go!

upvoted 0 times

...

Glendora

5 months ago

You need a stateful link for failover to work properly.

upvoted 0 times

...

Sheridan

5 months ago

Wait, can you really communicate without a stateful link? Sounds risky.

upvoted 0 times

...

Rosann

5 months ago

Setting max secured addresses doesn’t solve the failover problem.

upvoted 0 times

...

Eun

6 months ago

I recall that stateful links are important for maintaining session information. So, I think option C makes the most sense to ensure users can still communicate if FTD1 goes down.

upvoted 0 times

...

Sabra

6 months ago

I’m a bit confused about the options. I thought disabling port security could help, but I’m not convinced that’s the right approach for this scenario.

upvoted 0 times

...

Alesia

6 months ago

This question feels similar to one we practiced where we had to ensure continuity during a device failure. I think connecting a stateful link is crucial here.

upvoted 0 times

...

Yan

6 months ago

I remember studying about failover configurations, but I'm not entirely sure how a stateful link impacts communication during a failover.

upvoted 0 times

...

Lettie

7 months ago

This one's straightforward. The question is asking how to ensure users can still communicate with outside devices if the active firewall (FTD1) fails. The answer is clearly option C - we need to configure a stateful link between the firewalls.

upvoted 0 times

...

Mel

7 months ago

I'm a bit confused on the specifics of this question. Can someone explain the difference between a failover link and a stateful link? I want to make sure I understand the underlying concepts before selecting an answer.

upvoted 0 times

...

Irma

7 months ago

Alright, this is a classic firewall failover scenario. I think the key here is to set up a stateful link between the firewalls to maintain session information. Option C looks like the way to go.

upvoted 0 times

...

Evangelina

7 months ago

Okay, let's see. Since the firewalls are in active/standby mode without a stateful link, I'm guessing we need to ensure that the failover process is seamless for the users. I'm leaning towards option C, but I'll double-check the details.

upvoted 0 times

...

Dean

7 months ago

Hmm, this seems like a tricky one. I'll need to carefully consider the options and think through the implications of each.

upvoted 0 times

...

Hortencia

1 year ago

Exactly, Naomi! Firewalls and spanning-tree don't exactly go hand-in-hand. C is the only sensible choice.

upvoted 0 times

Ilene

11 months ago

User4: Disabling port security or configuring spanning-tree won't help in this scenario.

upvoted 0 times

...

Tonette

11 months ago

User3: Yeah, setting up a stateful link is crucial for maintaining connectivity.

upvoted 0 times

...

Chantay

11 months ago

User2: Agreed, that's the best option to ensure communication if FTD1 fails.

upvoted 0 times

...

Ricarda

1 year ago

Yes, a stateful link is necessary for seamless communication in case of failure. C is the correct choice.

upvoted 0 times

...

Ricarda

1 year ago

I agree, C is the best option to ensure communication if FTD1 fails.

upvoted 0 times

...

Nadine

1 year ago

User1: I think we need to connect and configure a stateful link next.

upvoted 0 times

...

Naomi

1 year 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

1 year 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

1 year ago

Nah, A is just a bad idea. That would leave your network wide open. C is the clear winner here.

upvoted 0 times

Filiberto

11 months ago

Definitely, having a stateful link will provide the necessary redundancy for communication to continue smoothly. C is the way to go.

upvoted 0 times

...

Sharika

12 months ago

I think C is the most secure option to maintain communication in case of a failure. It's important to have that failover in place.

upvoted 0 times

...

Dalene

1 year ago

Yeah, disabling port security is risky. Setting up a stateful link is the way to go.

upvoted 0 times

...

Meaghan

1 year 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

1 year ago

But what about disabling port security on the switch interfaces connected to FTD1 and FTD2? Could that also help?

upvoted 0 times

...

Stephanie

1 year ago

I agree with Owen, without a stateful link, communication may be disrupted if FTD1 fails.

upvoted 0 times

...

Sheridan

1 year 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 year 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 year ago

Definitely C. A stateful link is crucial for maintaining communication when the active firewall fails.

upvoted 0 times

Adelaide

1 year ago

Disabling port security on the switch interfaces connected to FTD1 and FTD2 might create security vulnerabilities.

upvoted 0 times

...

Socorro

1 year ago

I think setting maximum secured addresses to two on the switch interfaces could also help in this situation.

upvoted 0 times

...

Jesusita

1 year ago

I agree, a stateful link is necessary for maintaining communication during a failover.

upvoted 0 times

...

Owen

1 year ago

I think we need to connect and configure a stateful link for FTD1 and FTD2.

upvoted 0 times

...