New Year Sale 2026! 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 4A0-116 Exam - Topic 5 Question 39 Discussion

Actual exam question for Nokia's 4A0-116 exam
Question #: 39
Topic #: 5
[All 4A0-116 Questions]

Which of the following statements about SR-TE administrative constraints is FALSE?

Show Suggested Answer Hide Answer
Suggested Answer: C

Shared-Risk-Link Groups(SRLG) is taken into account when calculating both primary and secondary path to avoid routing over the same physical link.


by Dorothy at Sep 15, 2024, 09:39 AM

Limited Time Offer

25%

Off

Get Premium 4A0-116 Questions as Interactive Web-Based Practice Test or PDF

Contribute your Thoughts:

0/2000 characters
Submit Cancel
Virgina
3 months ago
The head-end router calculating based on max hop count is definitely correct.
upvoted 0 times
...
Reta
3 months ago
Wait, Shared-Risk-Link Groups only for secondary paths? Really?
upvoted 0 times
...
Melissa
3 months ago
The TE metric being the same as IGP by default is a fact.
upvoted 0 times
...
Anissa
4 months ago
I disagree, I thought hops could be non-adjacent.
upvoted 0 times
...
Candida
4 months ago
A strict hop must be adjacent? That's true.
upvoted 0 times
...
Jaclyn
4 months ago
The head-end router calculating paths with max hop count sounds right, but I wonder if that could be the false statement here.
upvoted 0 times
...
Abraham
4 months ago
I feel like Shared-Risk-Link Groups are relevant for both primary and secondary paths, but I might be mixing that up with another topic.
upvoted 0 times
...
Theodora
4 months ago
I think I saw a practice question about TE metrics being the same as IGP metrics. That one seems familiar, but I can't recall the details.
upvoted 0 times
...
Coral
5 months ago
I remember discussing hop constraints in class, but I'm not entirely sure if a strict hop has to be adjacent.
upvoted 0 times
...
Willodean
5 months ago
Okay, let me walk through this step-by-step. Shared-Risk-Link Groups are considered for the backup path, not the primary path, so C must be the correct answer.
upvoted 0 times
...
Laticia
5 months ago
The TE metric being different from the IGP metric is a common feature of SR-TE, so I'm pretty confident that option B is the false statement here.
upvoted 0 times
...
Geraldo
5 months ago
Hmm, I'm a bit confused by the wording here. I'll need to review my notes on SR-TE to make sure I understand the key concepts before attempting this.
upvoted 0 times
...
Ocie
5 months ago
This looks like a tricky question on SR-TE administrative constraints. I'll need to think carefully about the differences between the options.
upvoted 0 times
...
Claribel
1 year ago
Haha, I bet the exam writer is trying to trick us with these options. SR-TE is all about adding constraints, not removing them!
upvoted 0 times
...
Lillian
1 year ago
Option D sounds about right. The head-end router should be able to consider hop count and bandwidth when calculating the path.
upvoted 0 times
...
Margurite
1 year ago
Option A seems a bit tricky. Is a strict hop really required to be adjacent to the previous one? Doesn't SR-TE allow for more flexibility?
upvoted 0 times
Alexia
1 year ago
D) The head-end router may calculate a path that takes into account max hop count and bandwidth constraints.
upvoted 0 times
...
Arlette
1 year ago
C) Shared-Risk-Link Groups are only taken into account when calculating the secondary path.
upvoted 0 times
...
Kaycee
1 year ago
B) The TE metric for a link is by default the same as the IGP metric.
upvoted 0 times
...
Lonna
1 year ago
A) A strict hop must be adjacent to the previous hop in the list.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Jody
1 year ago
Hmm, I thought Option B was true. Isn't the TE metric usually different from the IGP metric to allow for better traffic engineering?
upvoted 0 times
Amina
1 year ago
User 3: That's correct. The TE metric being the same as the IGP metric can limit the flexibility in traffic engineering.
upvoted 0 times
...
Yolande
1 year ago
User 2: Oh, I see. So that means better traffic engineering is not always guaranteed with SR-TE.
upvoted 0 times
...
Tawna
1 year ago
User 1: Option B is actually false. The TE metric is by default the same as the IGP metric.
upvoted 0 times
...
Delisa
1 year ago
Man: That's correct. The TE metric needs to be configured separately for better traffic engineering.
upvoted 0 times
...
Man
1 year ago
Oh, I see. So that means better traffic engineering is not automatically allowed by default.
upvoted 0 times
...
Yuette
1 year ago
Option B is actually false. The TE metric for a link is by default the same as the IGP metric.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Annita
1 year ago
I agree with Valentin, D is the false statement.
upvoted 0 times
...
Valentin
1 year ago
I believe it's D because the head-end router can't consider max hop count.
upvoted 0 times
...
Annamae
1 year ago
I think the false statement is C.
upvoted 0 times
...
Pauline
1 year ago
Option C is definitely false. Shared-Risk-Link Groups are taken into account for both the primary and secondary paths.
upvoted 0 times
Sharika
1 year ago
So, the head-end router can calculate a path based on hop count and bandwidth constraints?
upvoted 0 times
...
Tequila
1 year ago
I agree, the statement about Shared-Risk-Link Groups is incorrect.
upvoted 0 times
...
Barbra
1 year ago
I think option C is false. Shared-Risk-Link Groups are considered for both paths.
upvoted 0 times
...
...

Save Cancel