An administrator has identified a denial of service attack that is stressing the management processor on the switch. Which actions can be applied to CoPP to mitigate the issue? (Select two.)
I'm with Cornell on this one. C and D are the way to go. Although, I have to admit, the idea of regulating the OOBM port sounds a bit like something out of a spy movie. 'The enemy is in the OOBM, I repeat, the enemy is in the OOBM!'
Hold up, does anyone else find it funny that we're trying to mitigate a 'denial of service' attack by setting the processing priority? That's like trying to fix a broken leg with a bandaid!
B is just weird. Why would we create a policy for the payload of GRE traffic? That doesn't seem relevant to the issue at hand. A and D are the clear winners here.
I think C and D are the way to go. Regulating the OOBM Ethernet port and applying multiple active policies seem like the most logical steps to mitigate the DoS attack.
I'm not sure about applying multiple active policies for the classes of traffic. I think focusing on setting the processing priority and regulating specific traffic is more effective.
I agree with Luz. Setting the processing priority will help manage the stress on the management processor, and regulating traffic from the OOBM Ethernet port will help control the flow of traffic.
Vallie
17 days agoLinwood
22 days agoIzetta
6 days agoKristin
28 days agoCornell
1 months agoShanda
4 days agoPenney
23 days agoLeonie
2 months agoNohemi
2 months agoLuz
2 months ago