New Year Sale 2026! Hurry Up, Grab the Special Discount - Save 25% - Ends In 00:00:00 Coupon code: SAVE25
Welcome to Pass4Success

- Free Preparation Discussions

F5 Networks 201 Exam - Topic 5 Question 109 Discussion

Actual exam question for F5 Networks's 201 exam
Question #: 109
Topic #: 5
[All 201 Questions]

An LTM device has a virtual server mapped to www.f5.com with a pool assigned. Users report that when browsing, they are periodically required to re-login to /resources/201.1.7.b.2_l.com. The objects are defined as follows:

Virtual server. Destination 192.168.245.100:443 netmask 255.255.255.0

Persistence: SSL session persistence

Profiles: HTTP/TCP

Which persistence method should the BIG-IP Administrator apply to resolve this issue?

Show Suggested Answer Hide Answer
Suggested Answer: B

Contribute your Thoughts:

0/2000 characters
Glenn
2 months ago
SSL session persistence should handle this, right?
upvoted 0 times
...
Mozelle
2 months ago
Wait, why would they need to re-login? That’s odd!
upvoted 0 times
...
Vernice
3 months ago
I disagree, destination address affinity might be better here.
upvoted 0 times
...
Beckie
3 months ago
I think hexadecimal is a total miss for this scenario.
upvoted 0 times
...
An
3 months ago
Sounds like source address affinity is the way to go.
upvoted 0 times
...
Sanjuana
3 months ago
I recall that destination address affinity is usually less common, but it might help in this scenario. I need to think about how users are being routed.
upvoted 0 times
...
Terina
4 months ago
I’m a bit confused about the options. I thought hexadecimal persistence was more for specific use cases, not general login issues.
upvoted 0 times
...
Thomasena
4 months ago
This question feels similar to one we practiced where we had to choose between source and destination address affinity. I think source address affinity might be the right choice here.
upvoted 0 times
...
Erin
4 months ago
I remember studying SSL session persistence, but I'm not entirely sure if it directly relates to the re-login issue.
upvoted 0 times
...
Winfred
4 months ago
I'm not entirely sure about this one. The persistence options don't seem to match what's described in the question. I'll need to review the material on persistence methods again to make sure I choose the right one.
upvoted 0 times
...
Paulina
4 months ago
Okay, let's see. The users are having to re-login, which suggests the persistence settings aren't working as expected. Since the virtual server is using SSL, I think Source address affinity is the way to go to keep the users connected.
upvoted 0 times
...
Bobbye
5 months ago
Hmm, I'm a bit confused here. The question mentions SSL session persistence, but that's not one of the options. I'll need to think this through carefully to make sure I understand the right persistence method to apply.
upvoted 0 times
...
Scarlet
5 months ago
This one seems straightforward. The users are having to re-login, so it's likely an issue with the persistence settings. I'll go with Source address affinity to keep the same users connected to the same server.
upvoted 0 times
...
Lisha
10 months ago
SIP? Really? I don't think that has anything to do with this problem. Maybe the BIG-IP administrator should try turning it off and on again, that usually works!
upvoted 0 times
...
Golda
10 months ago
Destination address affinity? I don't know, that seems a bit too specific for this problem. Maybe I should just flip a coin and hope for the best!
upvoted 0 times
Aimee
8 months ago
Let's try Destination address affinity and see if it resolves the issue.
upvoted 0 times
...
Carey
8 months ago
I'm not sure, maybe we should consider Source address affinity instead.
upvoted 0 times
...
Talia
8 months ago
I think Destination address affinity might be the solution.
upvoted 0 times
...
German
8 months ago
D) Destination address affinity
upvoted 0 times
...
Maia
8 months ago
C) SIP
upvoted 0 times
...
Miss
8 months ago
B) hexadecimal
upvoted 0 times
...
Laine
8 months ago
A) Source address affinity
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Lai
10 months ago
Source address affinity? That sounds like it might work, but I'm not sure if that's the best solution for an SSL-based issue. Maybe I need to think this through a bit more.
upvoted 0 times
Aileen
8 months ago
I agree, Destination address affinity could also be a good choice.
upvoted 0 times
...
Corinne
8 months ago
D) Destination address affinity
upvoted 0 times
...
Cordelia
9 months ago
I think Source address affinity might be the best option here.
upvoted 0 times
...
Layla
10 months ago
A) Source address affinity
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Dana
10 months ago
Hmm, this looks like a tricky one. I'm guessing it has something to do with the SSL session persistence, but I'm not sure which option would be the right fix.
upvoted 0 times
Lilli
8 months ago
Yeah, that makes sense. Let's go with that.
upvoted 0 times
...
Gaynell
8 months ago
I think it might be D) Destination address affinity.
upvoted 0 times
...
Fernanda
8 months ago
D) Destination address affinity
upvoted 0 times
...
Aleisha
9 months ago
A) Source address affinity
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Markus
11 months ago
But wouldn't using destination address affinity help maintain the session for users accessing /resources/201.1.7.b.2_l.com?
upvoted 0 times
...
Pearly
11 months ago
I disagree, I believe the correct answer is D) Destination address affinity.
upvoted 0 times
...
Markus
11 months ago
I think the answer is A) Source address affinity.
upvoted 0 times
...

Save Cancel