Deal of The Day! 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

Microsoft AZ-104 Exam - Topic 14 Question 88 Discussion

Actual exam question for Microsoft's AZ-104 exam
Question #: 88
Topic #: 14
[All AZ-104 Questions]

You have an Azure subscription that contains the virtual machines shown in the following table.

You deploy a load balancer that has the following configurations:

* Name: LB 1

* Type: Internal

* SKU: Standard

* Virtual network: VNET1

You need to ensure that you can add VM1 and VM2 to the backend pool of L81.

Solution: You create two Standard SKU public IP addresses and associate a Standard SKU public IP address to the network interface of each virtual machine.

Does this meet the goal?

Show Suggested Answer Hide Answer
Suggested Answer: A

by Hubert at Jan 27, 2024, 07:49 AM

Limited Time Offer

25%

Off

Get Premium AZ-104 Questions as Interactive Web-Based Practice Test or PDF

Contribute your Thoughts:

0/2000 characters
Submit Cancel
Lenna
6 months ago
Nope, that's a no-go for internal load balancers.
upvoted 0 times
...
Aleisha
6 months ago
Just need to use private IPs for the backend pool.
upvoted 0 times
...
Mose
6 months ago
Wait, are you sure about that? Sounds off.
upvoted 0 times
...
Erick
7 months ago
Totally agree, that won't work!
upvoted 0 times
...
Fletcher
7 months ago
You can't add VMs to an internal load balancer with public IPs.
upvoted 0 times
...
Delsie
7 months ago
I’m leaning towards A, but I might be mixing it up with a different scenario where public IPs were necessary. I need to double-check the requirements for internal load balancers.
upvoted 0 times
...
Truman
7 months ago
This question feels familiar; I practiced one where we had to consider the SKU types. I think using Standard SKU public IPs is not the right approach for an internal load balancer.
upvoted 0 times
...
Laquanda
7 months ago
I'm not entirely sure, but I remember something about backend pools needing to be in the same virtual network. Does that mean public IPs are irrelevant here?
upvoted 0 times
...
Shakira
8 months ago
I think the answer is B, because the load balancer is internal, so public IPs wouldn't be needed for VM1 and VM2.
upvoted 0 times
...
Edna
8 months ago
Hmm, I'm not entirely sure about this one. I'll need to review the Azure load balancer documentation to make sure I understand the requirements and the appropriate solution.
upvoted 0 times
...
Jean
8 months ago
I think I've got this. The key is that the load balancer is internal, so we don't need public IPs for the VMs. We should be able to add them directly to the backend pool of the internal load balancer.
upvoted 0 times
...
Deangelo
8 months ago
I'm a bit confused here. Isn't the requirement to add the VMs to the backend pool of an internal load balancer? Creating public IPs might not be the right solution.
upvoted 0 times
...
Edelmira
8 months ago
Okay, let me think this through. The question says we need to add VM1 and VM2 to the backend pool of LB1, and the solution involves creating public IP addresses for the VMs. I'm not sure if that's the right approach.
upvoted 0 times
...
Kaitlyn
8 months ago
Hmm, this one seems tricky. I'll need to carefully review the requirements and the solution provided to see if it meets the goal.
upvoted 0 times
...
Hershel
8 months ago
This looks straightforward. The UAG combines the firewall rules at the layer 3 level with the layer 7 Unified Access Gateway security. I'm confident I can get this one right.
upvoted 0 times
...
Dottie
8 months ago
Okay, this looks like a question about Medicare coverage types. I'll first carefully read the stem to understand what makes CCPs unique.
upvoted 0 times
...
Melissa
8 months ago
I'm a bit confused by the `operator int()` overload in the `B` class. Does that mean we can treat `B` objects as integers? That might be the key to understanding how the `transform` operation works here.
upvoted 0 times
...
Ammie
8 months ago
Hmm, I'm a bit unsure about this one. I know HDX Insight is related to Citrix performance, but I'm not sure if it's the best tool for gathering the specific information mentioned in the question. I'll have to think this through carefully.
upvoted 0 times
...
Brittney
2 years ago
Ah, I see what you all mean. This is a tricky one, but I think the key is making sure the VMs and load balancer are properly configured within the same virtual network. Public IPs would just complicate things unnecessarily.
upvoted 0 times
...
Paulene
2 years ago
Hmm, good point. I'm leaning towards 'No' on this one. The question states the load balancer is internal, so public IPs don't seem relevant. We need a solution that keeps everything internal to the virtual network.
upvoted 0 times
Bernardo
2 years ago
B: Yes, we should look for a solution that aligns with the internal nature of the load balancer.
upvoted 0 times
...
Noemi
2 years ago
A: No, the solution provided doesn't meet the goal of adding VM1 and VM2 to the backend pool of LB1.
upvoted 0 times
...
Coral
2 years ago
B: Yes, we need to focus on keeping everything internal to the virtual network.
upvoted 0 times
...
Romana
2 years ago
A: No, you're correct. The load balancer is internal, so public IPs wouldn't work.
upvoted 0 times
...
Tyra
2 years ago
B: Yes
upvoted 0 times
...
Rosalia
2 years ago
A: No
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Tawanna
2 years ago
I agree, the public IP addresses don't seem necessary for an internal load balancer. Maybe we need to check the virtual network configuration and ensure the VMs are in the same subnet as the load balancer.
upvoted 0 times
...
Della
2 years ago
This seems like a tricky question. The key point seems to be that the load balancer is internal, so we need to make sure the VMs can connect to it properly. Adding public IP addresses might not be the right solution here.
upvoted 0 times
...

Save Cancel