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

Nokia 4A0-107 Exam - Topic 2 Question 55 Discussion

Which of the following statements about CFHP policing hierarchy is FALSE?
C) A child policer can have a priority level from 0 to 10.
A) The root arbiter can be the parent of a tier 2 arbiter.
B) A tier 1 arbiter can be the parent of a policer.
D) Weight is used by a parent arbiter to allocate bandwidth among children of equal level

Nokia 4A0-107 Exam - Topic 2 Question 55 Discussion

Actual exam question for Nokia's 4A0-107 exam
Question #: 55
Topic #: 2
[All 4A0-107 Questions]

Which of the following statements about CFHP policing hierarchy is FALSE?

Show Suggested Answer Hide Answer
Suggested Answer: C

by Cristal at Feb 11, 2024, 09:54 PM

Limited Time Offer

25%

Off

Get Premium 4A0-107 Questions as Interactive Web-Based Practice Test or PDF

Contribute your Thoughts:

0/2000 characters
Submit Cancel
Lemuel
9 months ago
Weight allocation among children is definitely a thing!
upvoted 0 times
...
Billy
10 months ago
Wait, are we sure about D? That seems off.
upvoted 0 times
...
Deeanna
10 months ago
C sounds right, priority levels are usually 0 to 10.
upvoted 0 times
...
Adell
10 months ago
I think A is true, so it can't be false.
upvoted 0 times
...
Felix
10 months ago
A tier 1 arbiter can be the parent of a policer.
upvoted 0 times
...
Paris
11 months ago
I feel like the statement about tier 1 arbiters being able to be parents of policers is a bit tricky; I can't recall if that's accurate or not.
upvoted 0 times
...
Katina
11 months ago
I practiced a similar question where the weight allocation was discussed, and I think it's true that a parent arbiter uses weight for bandwidth distribution.
upvoted 0 times
...
Troy
11 months ago
I'm not entirely sure about the priority levels for child policers; I feel like it could be from 0 to 10, but I need to double-check that.
upvoted 0 times
...
Youlanda
11 months ago
I think I remember that the root arbiter can indeed be the parent of a tier 2 arbiter, so that one might be true.
upvoted 0 times
...
Reita
11 months ago
Weight being used by a parent arbiter to allocate bandwidth among equal-level children - that seems like the right answer. I'm confident that's the false statement here.
upvoted 0 times
...
Beatriz
11 months ago
Hmm, a child policer having a priority level from 0 to 10 sounds reasonable to me. I'm not sure about the other options, though. I'll have to review my notes on this topic.
upvoted 0 times
...
Martha
11 months ago
I'm pretty sure a tier 1 arbiter can't be the parent of a policer. That hierarchy doesn't sound correct. I'll mark that one as the false statement.
upvoted 0 times
...
Margart
11 months ago
Okay, let me see... The root arbiter can't be the parent of a tier 2 arbiter, right? That doesn't seem right. I'll have to double-check the details on that.
upvoted 0 times
...
Bok
11 months ago
Hmm, this looks like a tricky one. I'll need to think through the CFHP policing hierarchy carefully to figure out which statement is false.
upvoted 0 times
...
Mendy
11 months ago
Ah, I see. The broadcast-limit feature sounds like it would be the most effective solution to mitigate the unwanted UDP port 68 traffic. I'm confident that's the right answer here.
upvoted 0 times
...
Selma
11 months ago
Okay, got it. The key is to stop the automatic saving function before the upgrade to avoid conflicts. I think the answer is A, True.
upvoted 0 times
...
Tina
12 months ago
I think the change management aspect is meant to help practitioners transition into new roles, but I'm not entirely sure if that's the main focus.
upvoted 0 times
...
Leslie
2 years ago
I see your point, Alease. Now I'm unsure about my answer.
upvoted 0 times
...
Alease
2 years ago
I actually think the false statement is D, because weight is used by a parent arbiter to allocate bandwidth among children of different levels, not equal level.
upvoted 0 times
...
Ricarda
2 years ago
I agree with Felix, statement C is false.
upvoted 0 times
...
Felix
2 years ago
Because a child policer can have a priority level from 0 to 15, not 10.
upvoted 0 times
...
Fletcher
2 years ago
Why do you think that?
upvoted 0 times
...
Felix
2 years ago
I think the false statement is C.
upvoted 0 times
...
Octavio
2 years ago
I'm not sure about the answer, but I feel like A) The root arbiter can be the parent of a tier 2 arbiter could also be false. It's a tricky question!
upvoted 0 times
...
Latanya
2 years ago
That's an interesting perspective. So, according to you, the answer is D) Weight is the false statement. It's always good to consider different interpretations in an exam scenario.
upvoted 0 times
...
Eden
2 years ago
I believe the incorrect statement is actually D) Weight is used by a parent arbiter to allocate bandwidth among children of equal level. The weight is used for other purposes, not for bandwidth allocation.
upvoted 0 times
...
Joseph
2 years ago
I agree with you, C) is definitely the false statement. It's important to understand the limitations of CFHP policing hierarchy.
upvoted 0 times
...
Princess
2 years ago
I think the answer is C) A child policer can have a priority level from 0 to 10. That statement is FALSE because a child policer can only have a priority level from 0 to 8.
upvoted 0 times
...

Save Cancel