Google Professional Cloud Network Engineer Exam - Topic 7 Question 100 Discussion
Posted by
Elin on
Jan 13, 2025 at 05:43 PM
Your organization recently created a sandbox environment for a new cloud deployment. To have parity with the production environment, a pair of Compute Engine instances with multiple network interfaces (NICs) were deployed. These Compute Engine instances have a NIC in the Untrusted VPC (10.0.0.0/23) and a NIC in the Trusted VPC (10.128.0.0/9). A HA VPN tunnel has been established to the on-premises environment from the Untrusted VPC. Through this pair of VPN tunnels, the on-premises environment receives the route advertisements for the Untrusted and Trusted VPCs. In return, the on-premises environment advertises a number of CIDR ranges to the Untrusted VPC. However, when you tried to access one of the test services from the on-premises environment to the Trusted VPC, you received no response. You need to configure a highly available solution to enable the on-premises users to connect to the services in the Trusted VPC. What should you do?
Suggested Answer: B
The solution requires creating internal passthrough load balancers for both VPCs, with custom static routes pointing to each load balancer. This ensures connectivity between the on-premises environment and the Trusted VPC via the Untrusted VPC.
Wait, why would we set both NICs as next hops in D?
TO
Tori11 months ago
D looks complicated, not sure if it's necessary.
AR
Artie11 months ago
I think B is better for routing to the Trusted VPC.
ST
Stephaine12 months ago
Option A seems solid for load balancing.
VI
Viola12 months ago
I’m leaning towards option B because it mentions the correct CIDR ranges for the routes, but I’m not entirely confident about the internal load balancer setup.
RO
Roslyn1 year ago
I have a vague memory of needing to add both VMs to an unmanaged instance group, but I’m confused about the next hops for the routes. Is it really necessary to set them for both NICs?
HO
Howard1 year ago
I think we practiced a similar question where we had to configure load balancers and routes. I feel like option A might be the right choice, but I can't recall the specifics.
GL
Glynda1 year ago
I remember we discussed the importance of having proper routing between the VPCs, but I'm not sure which option correctly sets up the routes for both environments.
ZO
Zona1 year ago
I've got a strategy in mind. I think Option B looks like the right approach, with the load balancers and custom routes in each VPC. I'll double-check the details, but I feel confident I can work through this.
MA
Marguerita1 year ago
I'm a bit confused by all the different VPCs and network configurations. I'll need to take some time to really understand the scenario before I start trying to solve this.
KA
Kayleigh1 year ago
Okay, let's see. I think the key here is setting up the load balancers and static routes to enable the on-premises users to access the Trusted VPC. I'll need to make sure I understand the VPC network setup and the requirements.
ER
Erin1 year ago
Hmm, this seems like a tricky one. I'll need to carefully read through the details and think through the different options.
PH
Phil2 years ago
I'm with Avery on this one - drawing a diagram would be the way to go. But out of the options presented, Option B seems the most logical and comprehensive approach.
AV
Avery2 years ago
Haha, I bet the exam writers had a field day coming up with this one. If I was a network engineer, I'd probably just draw a diagram to work this out. Option B looks like the most straightforward solution.
CA
Casie2 years ago
Using individual VM NICs as the next hop for the static routes feels like a fragile solution. The load balancer approach in Option B is more robust and scalable.
BA
Barb2 years ago
Splitting the instance groups into nva-uigO and nva-uigl seems unnecessary and adds unnecessary complexity. I'd go with the simpler approach in Option B.
TA
Tanja2 years ago
↳ replying to Barb
Agreed, Option B it is for configuring the highly available solution.
DU
Dustin2 years ago
↳ replying to Barb
Let's go with Option B then.
ED
Edelmira2 years ago
↳ replying to Barb
Option B looks like the simpler approach to solve the issue.
TE
Tennie2 years ago
↳ replying to Barb
I agree, splitting the instance groups seems unnecessary.
YA
Yan2 years ago
I'm not sure, but I think option B could also work. It's a tough decision.
ME
Mendy2 years ago
I agree with Deeanna. Option A seems to be the best choice.
CL
Clarinda2 years ago
I'm not sure about creating an internal load balancer in the Trusted VPC with a 0.0.0.0/0 route. That seems overly broad and could potentially introduce security risks. Option B looks better overall.
NA
Na2 years ago
↳ replying to Clarinda
User 2
CH
Cherry2 years ago
↳ replying to Clarinda
User 1
DE
Deeanna2 years ago
I think we should go with option A.
GL
Glenna2 years ago
Option B seems the most comprehensive and logical solution. Separating the load balancers for the Untrusted and Trusted VPCs makes sense, and using custom static routes to route traffic through the appropriate load balancer is a solid approach.
NO
Noble2 years ago
↳ replying to Glenna
Using custom static routes to direct traffic through the correct load balancer is a logical approach.
GR
Graciela2 years ago
↳ replying to Glenna
The separation of load balancers for the Untrusted and Trusted VPCs is a smart move.
RO
Romana2 years ago
↳ replying to Glenna
I agree, Option B does seem like the best choice here.
Log in to Pass4Success
Sign in:
Report Comment
Is the comment made by USERNAME spam or abusive?
Commenting
In order to participate in the comments you need to be logged-in.
You can sign-up or
login