MENU
Which of the following is NOT a valid option to steer traffic into a flex-algo segment-routing tunnel?
Suggested Answer: D
Get Premium 4A0-116 Questions
as Interactive Web-Based Practice Test or PDF
Real Exam Format
Detailed Explanations
Instant Access
Get Your Practice Test
The data is transparently carried from end to end: This statement is not true, MPLS does not provide data transparency, which means that the data is not carried unmodified from end to end. MPLS uses labels to forward data, so the original IP packets are encapsulated in new MPLS packets, and the original IP headers are not visible at the egress LSR.
32 comments · newest first
TI
Tiffiny
11 months ago
Totally agree with C being the wrong choice!
CA
Carisa
11 months ago
Wait, can you really use a flex-algo Node-SID like that? Sounds weird!
WI
Willetta
11 months ago
D seems a bit off too, not sure about that one.
MA
Margarita
11 months ago
I think C is the odd one out here.
DA
Dalene
12 months ago
A and B are valid options for sure!
SH
Shawnta
12 months ago
I recall that EVPN services use VSI import policies, so option D might be valid. But I'm confused about how that relates to flex-algo.
BO
Boris
1 year ago
I think option C sounds off because it mentions a VRF import policy, which doesn't seem to relate directly to flex-algo.
VA
Van
1 year ago
I feel like I saw a similar question about SR-TE LSPs and flex-algo constraints. I think options A and B are valid, but I'm unsure about C and D.
TE
Terry
1 year ago
I remember studying flex-algo, but I'm not entirely sure which option doesn't fit. I think it might be related to the tunnel types.
JA
Janae
1 year ago
The key here is to focus on the specific requirements for steering traffic into a flex-algo segment-routing tunnel. Options A, B, and D seem to be the valid approaches, so C must be the one that's not valid.
AI
Aide
1 year ago
Hmm, I'm a bit confused by the wording of the options. I need to re-read them carefully to make sure I don't miss any subtle differences.
EL
Elin
1 year ago
I'm pretty confident I know the answer to this one. Option C looks like the odd one out since it's talking about VRF and VPRN, which don't seem relevant to the flex-algo segment-routing tunnel setup.
RE
Reuben
1 year ago
This question seems straightforward, but I want to make sure I understand the concepts correctly before answering.
MA
Maurine
1 year ago
Wait, are we sure this question isn't written by a bunch of flex-algo enthusiasts trying to trick us? I bet the answer is actually 'all of the above' just to keep us on our toes!
SA
Sarah
1 year ago
C) Configuring and applying a VRF import policy to a VPRN service and enabling the sr-is-is or sr-ospf tunnel type for the service, depending on the underlying routing protocol.
MO
Monte
1 year ago
B) Specifying the flex-algo instance ID as an additional TE constraint for an SR-TE LSP and enabling the sr-te tunnel type for a VPN service.
MA
Mary
1 year ago
C) Configuring and applying a VRF import policy to a VPRN service and enabling the sr-is-is or sr-ospf tunnel type for the service, depending on the underlying routing protocol.
TO
Tora
1 year ago
B) Specifying the flex-algo instance ID as an additional TE constraint for an SR-TE LSP and enabling the sr-te tunnel type for a VPN service.
CA
Carlee
1 year ago
A) Using a flex-algo Node-SID as an explicit hop in the path definition of an SR-TE LSP and enabling the sr-te tunnel type for a VPN service.
FR
Francisca
1 year ago
A) Using a flex-algo Node-SID as an explicit hop in the path definition of an SR-TE LSP and enabling the sr-te tunnel type for a VPN service.
MO
Mollie
1 year ago
Hmm, this is a tricky one. I'm going to have to think about it a bit more, but my initial instinct is that A is the correct answer.
LA
Lacey
2 years ago
I'm pretty sure B is the right choice. Specifying the flex-algo instance ID as a TE constraint for an SR-TE LSP is a valid way to steer traffic into a flex-algo segment-routing tunnel.
MA
Margurite
1 year ago
User 2: Yeah, that's a valid option to steer traffic into a flex-algo segment-routing tunnel.
MA
Marsha
1 year ago
User 1: I think B is correct too. It makes sense to specify the flex-algo instance ID as a TE constraint for an SR-TE LSP.
EL
Elenora
2 years ago
You're right, I overlooked that detail. Option D seems to be the one that is not a valid option.
OM
Omega
2 years ago
I disagree, option C is valid because it specifies enabling sr-is-is or sr-ospf tunnel type for the service.
AL
Aleta
2 years ago
Option C seems to be the correct answer here. Configuring a VRF import policy and enabling the sr-is-is or sr-ospf tunnel type is not a valid way to steer traffic into a flex-algo segment-routing tunnel.
VE
Veronika
1 year ago
D) Configuring and applying a VSI import policy to an EVPN service and enabling the sr-is-is or sr-ospf tunnel type for the service, depending on the underlying routing protocol.
RA
Rashida
1 year ago
C) Configuring and applying a VRF import policy to a VPRN service and enabling the sr-is-is or sr-ospf tunnel type for the service, depending on the underlying routing protocol.
DE
Delsie
1 year ago
B) Specifying the flex-algo instance ID as an additional TE constraint for an SR-TE LSP and enabling the sr-te tunnel type for a VPN service.
DE
Devorah
1 year ago
A) Using a flex-algo Node-SID as an explicit hop in the path definition of an SR-TE LSP and enabling the sr-te tunnel type for a VPN service.
EL
Elenora
2 years ago
I think option C is not valid because it mentions VRF import policy for VPRN service.