Fortinet NSE8_812 Exam - Topic 1 Question 19 Discussion

Actual exam question for Fortinet's NSE8_812 exam

Question #: 19
Topic #: 1

Refer to the exhibit, which shows the high availability configuration for the FortiAuthenticator (FAC1).

Based on this information, which statement is true about the next FortiAuthenticator (FAC2) member that will join an HA cluster with this FortiAuthenticator (FAC1)?

AFAC2 can only process requests when FAC1 fails.

BFAC2 can have its HA interface on a different network than FAC1.

CThe FortiToken license will need to be installed on the FAC2.

DFSSO sessions from FAC1 will be synchronized to FAC2.

Show Suggested Answer

Suggested Answer: A

The configuration excerpt shows that the SNAT source port partitioning behavior is set to dynamic. This means that the FortiGate will dynamically distribute SNAT source ports to operating FPCs or FPMs. This ensures that active sessions are not interrupted if an FPC or FPM goes down.

The other options are incorrect. Option B is incorrect because the default SNAT configuration is static. Option C is incorrect because the configuration excerpt does not specify that SNAT source ports are statically distributed. Option D is incorrect because the SNAT source ports are not evenly distributed across chassis slots.

Here are some additional details about SNAT source port partitioning behavior:

SNAT source port partitioning behavior can be set todynamicorstatic.

The default SNAT configuration isstatic.

Dynamic SNAT source port partitioning ensures that active sessions are not interrupted if an FPC or FPM goes down.

Static SNAT source port partitioning can improve performance by reducing the number of SNAT lookups.

by Elouise at Apr 09, 2024, 04:54 AM

Limited Time Offer

25%

Off

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

Contribute your Thoughts:

Submit Cancel

Noel

3 months ago

Not sure about that HA interface being on a different network...

upvoted 0 times

...

Jess

3 months ago

FSSO sessions sync between FACs, that's a must!

upvoted 0 times

...

Tyisha

3 months ago

Wait, does FAC2 really need its own FortiToken license?

upvoted 0 times

...

Roosevelt

4 months ago

I agree, FAC2 is active-active, not just standby.

upvoted 0 times

...

Karima

4 months ago

FAC2 can process requests even if FAC1 is up.

upvoted 0 times

...

Clorinda

4 months ago

I’m leaning towards the FSSO sessions being synchronized. It makes sense for continuity, but I need to double-check if that’s a standard feature in HA clusters.

upvoted 0 times

...

Frankie

4 months ago

The FortiToken license part is tricky. I feel like I read that licenses need to be installed on both units, but I can't remember if it's mandatory for FAC2.

upvoted 0 times

...

Margart

4 months ago

I think I saw a similar question about HA interfaces in a practice exam. If I recall correctly, FAC2 can have its HA interface on a different network than FAC1.

upvoted 0 times

...

Portia

5 months ago

I remember studying HA configurations, but I'm not sure if FAC2 can only process requests when FAC1 fails. That seems too limiting for an HA setup.

upvoted 0 times

...

Kris

5 months ago

This is a tricky one. I'm not super familiar with the FortiAuthenticator HA functionality, so I'll need to carefully read through the options and try to reason through the implications.

upvoted 0 times

...

Lashaunda

5 months ago

I feel pretty confident about this one. The HA configuration details provide a good basis to determine the correct statement about the new FAC2 member.

upvoted 0 times

...

Domonique

5 months ago

Okay, the exhibit shows the current FAC1 setup, so I need to think about how a new FAC2 would integrate into that. The options seem to cover the main considerations, so I'll analyze each one.

upvoted 0 times

...

Stefany

5 months ago

Hmm, I'm a bit unsure about the differences between the HA modes and how that would impact the new FAC2 member. I'll need to review the HA configuration details more carefully.

upvoted 0 times

...

Alyce

5 months ago

This looks like a pretty straightforward question about FortiAuthenticator high availability. I think I've got a good handle on the key concepts here.

upvoted 0 times

...

Alex

5 months ago

This question looks a bit tricky, but I think I can handle it. I'll need to carefully read through the options and think about what I know about Kafka consumers.

upvoted 0 times

...

Brock

5 months ago

The cost baseline is definitely related to project costs, so I'm leaning towards either A or C. I'll have to review my notes to be sure.

upvoted 0 times

...

Pearlene

10 months ago

I'm just hoping FAC2 doesn't get stage fright when it's time to join the HA cluster. Gotta keep that confidence high!

upvoted 0 times

Antonio

9 months ago

C) The FortiToken license will need to be installed on the FAC2.

upvoted 0 times

...

Lizette

9 months ago

B) FAC2 can have its HA interface on a different network than FAC1.

upvoted 0 times

...

Rocco

9 months ago

A) FAC2 can only process requests when FAC1 fails.

upvoted 0 times

...

Fanny

10 months ago

C is the way to go. The FortiToken license needs to be installed on FAC2 to maintain token-based authentication when failover occurs.

upvoted 0 times

...

Ben

10 months ago

Wait, I need to check if FAC2 can fly too. Gotta make sure it can keep up with FAC1's high availability magic tricks.

upvoted 0 times

Evangelina

9 months ago

User4: FSSO sessions from FAC1 will be synchronized to FAC2.

upvoted 0 times

...

Wilburn

9 months ago

User3: The FortiToken license will need to be installed on the FAC2.

upvoted 0 times

...

Jani

9 months ago

User2: FAC2 can have its HA interface on a different network than FAC1.

upvoted 0 times

...

Clorinda

9 months ago

User1: FAC2 can only process requests when FAC1 fails.

upvoted 0 times

...

Marget

10 months ago

I think option D is the right answer. FSSO sessions from FAC1 will be synchronized to FAC2 to ensure seamless failover.

upvoted 0 times

Sage

10 months ago

Yes, synchronizing FSSO sessions from FAC1 to FAC2 is crucial for high availability.

upvoted 0 times

...

Sylvie

10 months ago

I agree, option D makes sense for seamless failover.

upvoted 0 times

...

Aretha

11 months ago

I'm not sure, but I think A) FAC2 can only process requests when FAC1 fails could also be a possibility.

upvoted 0 times

...

Annamae

11 months ago

I agree with Lilli, it makes sense for the sessions to be synchronized for high availability.

upvoted 0 times

...

Amie

11 months ago

Option B is correct. The HA interface of FAC2 can be on a different network than FAC1's HA interface, as long as they can communicate with each other.

upvoted 0 times