MENU
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?
Suggested Answer: C
Get Premium 300-710 Questions
as Interactive Web-Based Practice Test or PDF
Real Exam Format
Detailed Explanations
Instant Access
Get Your Practice Test
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.
37 comments · newest first
NG
Nguyet
10 months ago
I think disabling port security might cause more issues.
PO
Portia
10 months ago
Totally agree, option C is the way to go!
GL
Glendora
10 months ago
You need a stateful link for failover to work properly.
SH
Sheridan
11 months ago
Wait, can you really communicate without a stateful link? Sounds risky.
RO
Rosann
11 months ago
Setting max secured addresses doesn’t solve the failover problem.
EU
Eun
11 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.
SA
Sabra
11 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.
AL
Alesia
11 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.
YA
Yan
12 months ago
I remember studying about failover configurations, but I'm not entirely sure how a stateful link impacts communication during a failover.
LE
Lettie
12 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.
ME
Mel
1 year 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.
IR
Irma
1 year 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.
EV
Evangelina
1 year 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.
DE
Dean
1 year ago
Hmm, this seems like a tricky one. I'll need to carefully consider the options and think through the implications of each.
HO
Hortencia
2 years ago
Exactly, Naomi! Firewalls and spanning-tree don't exactly go hand-in-hand. C is the only sensible choice.
IL
Ilene
1 year ago
User4: Disabling port security or configuring spanning-tree won't help in this scenario.
TO
Tonette
1 year ago
User3: Yeah, setting up a stateful link is crucial for maintaining connectivity.
CH
Chantay
1 year ago
User2: Agreed, that's the best option to ensure communication if FTD1 fails.
RI
Ricarda
1 year ago
Yes, a stateful link is necessary for seamless communication in case of failure. C is the correct choice.
RI
Ricarda
1 year ago
I agree, C is the best option to ensure communication if FTD1 fails.
NA
Nadine
1 year ago
User1: I think we need to connect and configure a stateful link next.
NA
Naomi
2 years ago
Haha, imagine if they chose D and tried to configure spanning-tree on firewalls. That would be a disaster waiting to happen!
OW
Owen
2 years ago
I don't think disabling port security is the best solution, we should go with configuring a stateful link for better failover.
EZ
Ezekiel
2 years ago
Nah, A is just a bad idea. That would leave your network wide open. C is the clear winner here.
FI
Filiberto
1 year ago
Definitely, having a stateful link will provide the necessary redundancy for communication to continue smoothly. C is the way to go.
SH
Sharika
1 year 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.
DA
Dalene
1 year ago
Yeah, disabling port security is risky. Setting up a stateful link is the way to go.
ME
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.
WI
Wilda
2 years ago
But what about disabling port security on the switch interfaces connected to FTD1 and FTD2? Could that also help?
ST
Stephanie
2 years ago
I agree with Owen, without a stateful link, communication may be disrupted if FTD1 fails.
SH
Sheridan
2 years ago
Hmm, I'm not sure about that. Wouldn't disabling port security on the switch interfaces (A) be a simpler solution?
TA
Talia
2 years 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.
LA
Laine
2 years ago
Definitely C. A stateful link is crucial for maintaining communication when the active firewall fails.
AD
Adelaide
1 year ago
Disabling port security on the switch interfaces connected to FTD1 and FTD2 might create security vulnerabilities.
SO
Socorro
2 years ago
I think setting maximum secured addresses to two on the switch interfaces could also help in this situation.
JE
Jesusita
2 years ago
I agree, a stateful link is necessary for maintaining communication during a failover.
OW
Owen
2 years ago
I think we need to connect and configure a stateful link for FTD1 and FTD2.