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
Mail Us support@pass4success.com
Location US
Mob_nav_barsMENU

Google Professional Cloud Network Engineer Exam - Topic 3 Question 80 Discussion

Actual exam question for Google's Professional Cloud Network Engineer exam
Question #: 80
Topic #: 3
[All Professional Cloud Network Engineer Questions]

Your company recently migrated to Google Cloud in a Single region. You configured separate Virtual Private Cloud (VPC) networks for two departments. Department A and Department B. Department A has requested access to resources that are part Of Department Bis VPC. You need to configure the traffic from private IP addresses to flow between the VPCs using multi-NIC virtual machines (VMS) to meet security requirements Your configuration also must

* Support both TCP and UDP protocols

* Provide fully automated failover

* Include health-checks

Require minimal manual Intervention In the client VMS

Which approach should you take?

Show Suggested Answer Hide Answer
Suggested Answer: D

The correct answer is D. Create an instance template and a managed instance group. Configure two separate internal TCP/UDP load balancers for each protocol (TCP/UDP), and configure the client VMs to use the internal load balancers' virtual IP addresses.

This answer is based on the following facts:

Using multi-NIC VMs as network virtual appliances (NVAs) allows you to route traffic between different VPC networks1. You can use NVAs to implement custom network policies and security requirements.

Using an instance template and a managed instance group allows you to create and manage multiple identical NVAs2. You can also use health checks and autoscaling policies to ensure high availability and reliability of your NVAs.

Using internal TCP/UDP load balancers allows you to distribute traffic from client VMs to NVAs based on the protocol and port3. You can also use health checks and failover policies to ensure that only healthy NVAs receive traffic.

Configuring the client VMs to use the internal load balancers' virtual IP addresses allows you to simplify the routing configuration and avoid manual intervention4. You do not need to create static routes or update them when NVAs are added or removed.

The other options are not correct because:

Option A is not suitable. Creating the VMs in the same zone does not provide high availability or failover. Using static routes with IP addresses as next hops requires manual intervention when NVAs are added or removed.

Option B is not optimal. Creating the VMs in different zones provides high availability, but not failover. Using static routes with instance names as next hops requires manual intervention when NVAs are added or removed.

Option C is not feasible. Creating an instance template and a managed instance group provides high availability and reliability, but using a single internal load balancer does not support both TCP and UDP protocols. You cannot define a custom static route with an internal load balancer as the next hop.


by Carman at Apr 26, 2024, 06:48 AM

Limited Time Offer

25%

Off

Get Premium Professional Cloud Network Engineer Questions as Interactive Web-Based Practice Test or PDF

Contribute your Thoughts:

0/2000 characters
Submit Cancel
Kanisha
3 months ago
I agree with C, it covers all the requirements well!
upvoted 0 times
...
An
3 months ago
Wait, can we really use instance names as next hops?
upvoted 0 times
...
Jani
3 months ago
A is too simplistic, we need redundancy.
upvoted 0 times
...
An
4 months ago
I think D is overkill for this scenario.
upvoted 0 times
...
Chantell
4 months ago
Option C seems solid for load balancing.
upvoted 0 times
...
Jade
4 months ago
I definitely remember that health checks are crucial for failover, so I think we need to ensure whatever option we choose supports that. Option D might be overkill, though.
upvoted 0 times
...
Vincenza
4 months ago
I’m a bit confused about the static routes. I feel like I read that using instance names as next hops could complicate things, but I can't recall the details.
upvoted 0 times
...
Glory
4 months ago
I think option C sounds familiar because it mentions a managed instance group, which we practiced in class. It might be the right choice for automated failover.
upvoted 0 times
...
Colette
5 months ago
I remember something about using internal load balancers for traffic between VPCs, but I'm not sure if it's better to use one or two for TCP and UDP.
upvoted 0 times
...
Tasia
5 months ago
I'm feeling pretty confident about this one. Option C looks like the way to go - an instance template, managed instance group, and a single internal load balancer should do the trick.
upvoted 0 times
...
Eloisa
5 months ago
Okay, I think I've got it. The key is to use an internal load balancer to handle the traffic between the VPCs. That way, we can get the automated failover and health checks that are required.
upvoted 0 times
...
Salena
5 months ago
Hmm, the requirement to support both TCP and UDP protocols is interesting. I wonder if that rules out some of the simpler options.
upvoted 0 times
...
Tran
5 months ago
This looks like a tricky question. I'll need to think through the requirements carefully to determine the best approach.
upvoted 0 times
...
Ellsworth
5 months ago
I'm a bit confused by the mention of multi-NIC VMs. Does that mean we need to create some kind of custom routing solution? I'll need to research that a bit more.
upvoted 0 times
...
Oliva
5 months ago
Okay, I think I've got a good handle on this. The key is to focus on the specific details in the question and see which fraud risk scenario best fits the situation described.
upvoted 0 times
...
Stephaine
5 months ago
Okay, I think I've got it. The key here is the phrase "consequences attached to carrying out responsibilities." That points to the concept of accountability, which is option D.
upvoted 0 times
...
Shakira
5 months ago
This one seems pretty straightforward. I'd go with B - low transportation costs, since that would likely lead to lower overall inventory levels.
upvoted 0 times
...
Susy
5 months ago
Hmm, I'm a bit unsure about this one. The question is asking about the Continuous Monitoring phase, but some of the options seem to be related to other phases like accreditation. I'll need to think this through and make sure I understand the key activities in the Continuous Monitoring process.
upvoted 0 times
...
Maryann
2 years ago
I prefer the option of creating the VMS in different zones and configuring static routes with instance names as next hops. It seems like a simpler solution to me.
upvoted 0 times
...
Jenise
2 years ago
I see your point, Having separate internal load balancers for TCP and UDP protocols can ensure minimal manual intervention.
upvoted 0 times
...
Xenia
2 years ago
But wouldn't creating two separate internal load balancers for each protocol provide better redundancy?
upvoted 0 times
...
Stephania
2 years ago
I agree with Using a managed instance group and internal load balancer can provide automated failover and health-checks.
upvoted 0 times
...
Felix
2 years ago
I think the best approach is to create an Instance template and a managed instance group with an internal load balancer.
upvoted 0 times
...
Kristian
2 years ago
Exactly. And it would also require minimal manual intervention in the client VMs.
upvoted 0 times
...
Mammie
2 years ago
That sounds like a good idea. It would provide fully automated failover and include health-checks.
upvoted 0 times
...
Kristian
2 years ago
I think the best approach would be to create an Instance template and a managed instance group with a Single internal load balancer.
upvoted 0 times
Elli
2 years ago
It seems like we all agree that using a single internal load balancer with custom static routes is the best approach.
upvoted 0 times
...
Malcom
2 years ago
C) Create an Instance template and a managed instance group. Configure a single internal load balancer, and define a custom static route with the Internal TCP/UDP load balancer as the next hop
upvoted 0 times
...
Marylyn
2 years ago
I see your point. Having separate load balancers for TCP and UDP could also be a good approach.
upvoted 0 times
...
Frank
2 years ago
D) Create an instance template and a managed instance group. Configure two separate internal TCP/UDP load balancers for each protocol, and configure the client VMs to use the internal load balancers' virtual IP addresses.
upvoted 0 times
...
Levi
2 years ago
That sounds like a good idea. It would provide automated failover and health checks.
upvoted 0 times
...
Katy
2 years ago
C) Create an Instance template and a managed instance group. Configure a single internal load balancer, and define a custom static route with the Internal TCP/UDP load balancer as the next hop
upvoted 0 times
...
...

Save Cancel