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
Mail Us support@pass4success.com
Location US
Mob_nav_barsMENU

Dell EMC D-NWG-FN-23 Exam - Topic 3 Question 23 Discussion

Refer to the exhibit.No static routing has been configured. For iBGP loopback-based peering, which statement is correct?
B) S1 should have the Loopback network of S3 in its routing table for loopback-based peering.
A) It is not necessary for the routing table on S1 to have an entry for the loopback network of S3.
C) For iBGP peering, physical interface addresses must be used.
D) A static route on S1 to 144.254.32.1/32 will eliminate the need for loopback-based peering with S3.

Dell EMC D-NWG-FN-23 Exam - Topic 3 Question 23 Discussion

Actual exam question for Dell EMC's D-NWG-FN-23 exam
Question #: 23
Topic #: 3
[All D-NWG-FN-23 Questions]

Refer to the exhibit.

No static routing has been configured. For iBGP loopback-based peering, which statement is correct?

Show Suggested Answer Hide Answer
Suggested Answer: B

by Rusty at Sep 16, 2024, 07:35 PM

Limited Time Offer

25%

Off

Get Premium D-NWG-FN-23 Questions as Interactive Web-Based Practice Test or PDF

Contribute your Thoughts:

0/2000 characters
Submit Cancel
Virgie
9 months ago
D is misleading, static routes don't replace loopback peering.
upvoted 0 times
...
Stephaine
9 months ago
B seems more logical, S1 should know S3's loopback.
upvoted 0 times
...
Fatima
9 months ago
Wait, isn't it risky to not have that entry?
upvoted 0 times
...
Destiny
10 months ago
Totally agree, loopback peering doesn't require that entry.
upvoted 0 times
...
Desmond
10 months ago
A is correct, no need for S1 to have S3's loopback.
upvoted 0 times
...
Tish
10 months ago
I don't recall the specifics, but option D sounds off to me. A static route shouldn't eliminate the need for loopback peering, I think.
upvoted 0 times
...
Thurman
10 months ago
I practiced a similar question, and I feel like physical interfaces are not required for iBGP, so option C seems wrong.
upvoted 0 times
...
Tamala
10 months ago
I'm not entirely sure, but I remember something about needing the loopback in the routing table for proper peering. Maybe it's option B?
upvoted 0 times
...
Odelia
11 months ago
I think option A might be correct because iBGP can work without having the loopback in the routing table, right?
upvoted 0 times
...
Lashawn
11 months ago
This seems straightforward to me. Option B is clearly the correct answer. For iBGP loopback-based peering, the routing table on S1 must have an entry for the loopback network of S3. I'm confident in this answer.
upvoted 0 times
...
Ria
11 months ago
I'm not entirely sure about this one. The question is a bit tricky, and I don't have a strong grasp of the requirements for iBGP loopback-based peering. I'll need to think it through carefully and maybe even refer to my notes to make sure I choose the right answer.
upvoted 0 times
...
Jennie
11 months ago
Okay, I've got this. For iBGP loopback-based peering, the routing table on S1 needs to have an entry for the loopback network of S3. That's what option B is saying, so that's the correct answer.
upvoted 0 times
...
Goldie
11 months ago
I'm a bit confused on this one. The question is asking about iBGP loopback-based peering, but some of the options don't seem directly related to that. I'll need to carefully review the requirements for iBGP loopback-based peering to determine the best answer.
upvoted 0 times
...
Malinda
11 months ago
I think the key here is understanding the requirements for iBGP loopback-based peering. Option B seems to be the correct answer, as the routing table on S1 should have the loopback network of S3 for the peering to work.
upvoted 0 times
...
My
11 months ago
This question seems straightforward, I think the answer is B.
upvoted 0 times
...
Gilma
2 years ago
Option C is just plain wrong. Everyone knows iBGP peering uses loopback addresses, not physical interfaces. What a silly choice!
upvoted 0 times
Lyndia
2 years ago
C) For iBGP peering, physical interface addresses must be used.
upvoted 0 times
...
Troy
2 years ago
B) S1 should have the Loopback network of S3 in its routing table for loopback-based peering.
upvoted 0 times
...
Lorita
2 years ago
A) It is not necessary for the routing table on S1 to have an entry for the loopback network of S3.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Ludivina
2 years ago
Haha, I bet the person who wrote this question is a network troll. They're trying to confuse us with all these options!
upvoted 0 times
Reid
2 years ago
User 3: I agree with Reiko, having the Loopback network of S3 in S1's routing table makes sense for iBGP peering.
upvoted 0 times
...
Reiko
2 years ago
No, I believe option A is right. It's not necessary for S1 to have an entry for S3's loopback network.
upvoted 0 times
...
Trina
2 years ago
I think option B is correct, S1 needs the Loopback network of S3 in its routing table.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Tamar
2 years ago
It's a trick question! The correct answer is D. A static route on S1 to the loopback of S3 will eliminate the need for loopback-based peering.
upvoted 0 times
Nieves
2 years ago
Oh, I see. Thanks for clarifying!
upvoted 0 times
...
Irene
2 years ago
Actually, the correct answer is D) A static route on S1 to 144.254.32.1/32 will eliminate the need for loopback-based peering with S3.
upvoted 0 times
...
Peggy
2 years ago
No, I believe the correct answer is B) S1 should have the Loopback network of S3 in its routing table for loopback-based peering.
upvoted 0 times
...
Luis
2 years ago
I think the answer is A) It is not necessary for the routing table on S1 to have an entry for the loopback network of S3.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Darell
2 years ago
But having the Loopback network of S3 in the routing table would ensure proper communication between the devices, don't you think?
upvoted 0 times
...
Lon
2 years ago
I think option B is the correct answer. The routing table on S1 needs to have an entry for the loopback network of S3 for iBGP loopback-based peering to work.
upvoted 0 times
Iesha
2 years ago
Yes, option B is the most logical choice. It ensures proper connectivity between the loopback interfaces of S1 and S3 for iBGP peering.
upvoted 0 times
...
Truman
2 years ago
That makes sense. Having the loopback network of S3 in the routing table of S1 is essential for iBGP loopback-based peering.
upvoted 0 times
...
Salley
2 years ago
I agree with you, option B is the correct answer. S1 should have the Loopback network of S3 in its routing table for loopback-based peering.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Gianna
2 years ago
I disagree, I believe option A is correct. It is not necessary for the routing table on S1 to have an entry for the loopback network of S3.
upvoted 0 times
...
Darell
2 years ago
I think option B is correct. S1 needs to have the Loopback network of S3 in its routing table for loopback-based peering.
upvoted 0 times
...

Save Cancel