Fortinet NSE6_FSW-7.2 Exam - Topic 1 Question 11 Discussion

Actual exam question for Fortinet's NSE6_FSW-7.2 exam

Question #: 11
Topic #: 1

Refer to the exhibit.

The profile shown in the exhibit is assigned to a group of managed FortiSwitch ports. and these ports are connected to endpoints which are powered by PoE. Which configuration action can you perform on the LLDP profile to cause these endpoints to exchange PoE information and negotiate power with the managed

FortiSwitch?

AAssign a new LL0P profile to handle different LLDP-ME0 TLVs

BAdd power management as part of LLDP-MED TLVs to advertise.

CDefine an LLDP-ME0 location 10 to use standard protocols for power.

DCreate new a LLOP-MEO application type to define the PoE parameters.

Show Suggested Answer

Suggested Answer: B

by Scot at Jul 05, 2024, 08:30 PM

Limited Time Offer

25%

Off

Get Premium NSE6_FSW-7.2 Questions as Interactive Web-Based Practice Test or PDF

Contribute your Thoughts:

Submit Cancel

Una

3 months ago

Not sure about C, seems a bit off for power negotiation.

upvoted 0 times

...

Lawrence

3 months ago

Definitely B, it’s all about those TLVs!

upvoted 0 times

...

Detra

3 months ago

Wait, can you really negotiate power like that? Sounds complicated.

upvoted 0 times

...

Emmett

4 months ago

I think A could work too, but B seems more direct.

upvoted 0 times

...

Renay

4 months ago

B is the way to go for PoE info exchange.

upvoted 0 times

...

Amie

4 months ago

I recall that defining location parameters is important, but I’m not sure if LLDP-ME0 is the right choice for PoE.

upvoted 0 times

...

Dahlia

4 months ago

I’m a bit confused about the difference between LLDP-ME0 and LLDP-MED. I might need to double-check that before answering.

upvoted 0 times

...

Alyce

4 months ago

I think adding power management as part of the LLDP-MED TLVs sounds familiar. We practiced something similar in our labs.

upvoted 0 times

...

Ressie

5 months ago

I remember studying LLDP profiles, but I'm not entirely sure which TLVs are specifically related to PoE negotiation.

upvoted 0 times

...

Yen

5 months ago

I'm pretty confident that the answer is B. Enabling power management as part of the LLDP-MED TLVs is the way to go to facilitate the PoE information exchange and negotiation between the FortiSwitch and the endpoints.

upvoted 0 times

...

Noelia

5 months ago

Okay, let me think this through. The key is that the ports are connected to PoE-powered endpoints, so we need to configure the LLDP profile to handle PoE information exchange and negotiation. I'm leaning towards option B as the best approach.

upvoted 0 times

...

Gerald

5 months ago

Hmm, I'm a bit confused on this one. I'm not sure if I fully understand the difference between LLDP and LLDP-MED. I'll need to review those concepts before attempting to answer.

upvoted 0 times

...

Raina

5 months ago

This seems like a straightforward LLDP-MED question. I think the answer is B - adding power management as part of the LLDP-MED TLVs to advertise.

upvoted 0 times

...

Erasmo

5 months ago

Wait, I thought Kubernetes was also a runtime environment supported by SAP BTP. I'm not sure if that's included in option A or B. I'll have to think this through carefully.

upvoted 0 times

...

Phuong

5 months ago

I'm pretty sure the answer is A. priocntl is the utility used to set processes with the FSS scheduler by default.

upvoted 0 times

...

Paulina

2 years ago

Power management as part of LLDP-MED TLVs? Sounds like a no-brainer to me. D all the way!

upvoted 0 times

...

Dustin

2 years ago

Haha, I bet the exam writer had a field day coming up with these options. D is the way to go, no doubt about it.

upvoted 0 times

Filiberto

1 year ago

It's important for the endpoints to exchange PoE information and negotiate power.

upvoted 0 times

...

Stacey

2 years ago

Yeah, adding power management as part of LLDP-MED TLVs is the way to go.

upvoted 0 times

...

Tamie

2 years ago

I agree, D is definitely the best option.

upvoted 0 times

...

Whitley

2 years ago

Definitely, D seems like the most logical choice for this scenario.

upvoted 0 times

...

Brynn

2 years ago

Yeah, I agree. Adding power management as part of LLDP-MED TLVs is the way to go.

upvoted 0 times

...

Meghan

2 years ago

I think D is the best option here.

upvoted 0 times

...

Sharen

2 years ago

Option B looks interesting, but I'm not sure if assigning a new LLDP profile is necessary just to handle different LLDP-MED TLVs. D seems like the most straightforward choice here.

upvoted 0 times

Linwood

2 years ago

Yeah, D seems like the most efficient choice for this scenario.

upvoted 0 times

...

Ashley

2 years ago

I think D is the best option too. It directly adds power management to advertise.

upvoted 0 times

...

Mozell

2 years ago

Hmm, that makes sense too. It's important to advertise power management information for negotiation.

upvoted 0 times

...

Helga

2 years ago

I disagree, I believe the correct answer is D) Add power management as part of LLDP-MED TLVs to advertise.

upvoted 0 times

...

Janessa

2 years ago

I think the correct answer is D. Adding power management as part of LLDP-MED TLVs to advertise seems like the logical step to enable PoE negotiation between the endpoints and the FortiSwitch.

upvoted 0 times

Marsha

2 years ago

I agree, adding power management as part of LLDP-MED TLVs to advertise makes sense.

upvoted 0 times

...

Yun

2 years ago

I think the correct answer is D.

upvoted 0 times

...

Mozell

2 years ago

I think the answer is A) Create new a LLDP-MED application type to define the PoE parameters.

upvoted 0 times

...