Fortinet NSE8_812 Exam - Topic 1 Question 10 Discussion

Actual exam question for Fortinet's NSE8_812 exam

Question #: 10
Topic #: 1

You are creating the CLI script to be used on a new SD-WAN deployment You will have branches with a different number of internet connections and want to be sure there is no need to change the Performance SLA configuration in case more connections are added to the branch.

The current configuration is:

Which configuration do you use for the Performance SLA members?

Aset members any

Bset members 0

Ccurrent configuration already fulfills the requirement

Dset members all

Show Suggested Answer

Suggested Answer: A

The set members any option will ensure that all of the SD-WAN interfaces are included in the Performance SLA. This is the best option if you want to be sure that the Performance SLA will be triggered even if more connections are added to the branch in the future.

The set members 0 option will exclude all of the SD-WAN interfaces from the Performance SLA. This is not a good option because it will prevent the Performance SLA from being triggered even if there is a problem with the network.

The current configuration already fulfills the requirement option is incorrect because it does not ensure that all of the SD-WAN interfaces will be included in the Performance SLA.

The set members all option will include all of the SD-WAN interfaces in the Performance SLA, but it is not the best option because it is not scalable. If you have a large number of SD-WAN interfaces, this option will cause the Performance SLA to be triggered too often.

References:

Performance SLA | FortiGate / FortiOS 7.4.0

Configuring Performance SLA | FortiGate / FortiOS 7.4.0

by Kimbery at Oct 06, 2023, 08:32 AM

Limited Time Offer

25%

Off

Get Premium NSE8_812 Questions as Interactive Web-Based Practice Test or PDF

Contribute your Thoughts:

Submit Cancel

Edison

3 months ago

I’m leaning towards D, but not sure if it’s necessary.

upvoted 0 times

...

Cristen

3 months ago

Option C seems fine too, no need to change if it’s already set.

upvoted 0 times

...

Caitlin

3 months ago

Wait, does "set members any" really work for future connections?

upvoted 0 times

...

Cory

4 months ago

Definitely agree with A, it covers all connections!

upvoted 0 times

...

Bettyann

4 months ago

I think option A is the way to go.

upvoted 0 times

...

Magnolia

4 months ago

I vaguely recall that "set members 0" doesn't really make sense in this context, but I can't remember why exactly.

upvoted 0 times

...

Aretha

4 months ago

I’m leaning towards "current configuration already fulfills the requirement" because it seems like it might already be set up correctly, but I need to double-check that.

upvoted 0 times

...

Robt

4 months ago

I practiced a similar question, and I feel like "set members all" might be the right answer since it covers all connections, but I could be wrong.

upvoted 0 times

...

Madonna

5 months ago

I think I remember that using "set members any" allows for flexibility with the number of connections, but I'm not entirely sure if that's the best choice here.

upvoted 0 times

...

Doretha

5 months ago

I'm pretty confident that option D, "set members all," is the correct answer here. That way, the configuration will automatically adapt to any changes in the number of internet connections at the branch.

upvoted 0 times

...

Dorthy

5 months ago

Based on the current configuration and the requirement to handle additional connections, I think option C is the way to go. The existing configuration already fulfills the need, so no changes should be necessary.

upvoted 0 times

...

Mable

5 months ago

I'm a bit confused by the wording of the question. Can someone clarify what the "Performance SLA members" are and how they relate to the number of internet connections at the branch?

upvoted 0 times

...

Hubert

5 months ago

Okay, let me think this through. The question is asking about the Performance SLA members, and we want to ensure that the configuration will work even if more connections are added. I'm leaning towards option D, but I'll double-check the details.

upvoted 0 times

...

Rebbecca

5 months ago

Hmm, this looks like a tricky one. I'll need to carefully analyze the current configuration and the requirements to determine the best approach.

upvoted 0 times

...

Clemencia

5 months ago

I'm a bit unsure about this one. The options all seem related to a CI workflow, but I'll have to carefully consider each step to determine which one is the odd one out.

upvoted 0 times

...

Burma

5 months ago

I've got this one! The applications are directly accessing the implementation (the customer database) instead of going through the contract (the Customer service). So the answer has to be Consumer-to-Implementation.

upvoted 0 times

...

Margarita

5 months ago

This looks like a straightforward question about the requirements for creating a vSphere with Tanzu Supervisor Namespace. I'll carefully read through the options and select the two that are needed.

upvoted 0 times

...

Mi

5 months ago

Ah, I remember now. ElGamal is the encryption system mentioned in the question. Diffie-Hellman is the key agreement protocol that it's based on. I'll mark that down as my answer.

upvoted 0 times

...