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

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
6 months ago
D is misleading, static routes don't replace loopback peering.
upvoted 0 times
...
Stephaine
6 months ago
B seems more logical, S1 should know S3's loopback.
upvoted 0 times
...
Fatima
6 months ago
Wait, isn't it risky to not have that entry?
upvoted 0 times
...
Destiny
7 months ago
Totally agree, loopback peering doesn't require that entry.
upvoted 0 times
...
Desmond
7 months ago
A is correct, no need for S1 to have S3's loopback.
upvoted 0 times
...
Tish
7 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
7 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
7 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
8 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
8 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
8 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
8 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
8 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
8 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
8 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